Global Gateway: A Strategy, Not a Legal Framework
Pauline Veron, Policy Analyst at ECDPM, provided a welcome introduction and further background to our topic. She clarified that the Global Gateway did not emerge out of nowhere. Its roots can be traced back to 2016, when internal EU policies and strategic concepts were developed. One common misconception, she noted, is that Global Gateway represents a new funding pot with existing funds. In reality, it is a strategy aimed at mobilising private and public resources and redirecting existing resources.
Crucially, Global Gateway lacks a legal foundation, making it more of a branding tool than a binding policy. The oft-cited €300 billion associated with the strategy is not pre-allocated funding but a projection based on blended finance and guarantees. Jaime Just, Senior Policy and Advocacy Advisor at CONCORD, raised concerns about whether these blended finance models are effective, given the apparent lack of private sector enthusiasm to invest.
Shift Away from Development Cooperation
Antonio Gambini, EU Aid Policy and Development Finance Advisor at Oxfam EU, highlighted findings from the recent report Who Profits from the Global Gateway. This is a publication by Oxfam, Eurodad and Counter Balance. He raised alarms about Global Gateway’s prioritising foreign policy goals and economic interests over positive development in partner countries. Jaime Just echoed this concern, stating that developmental goals are being sidelined in favour of financial gains and short-term geopolitical goals rather than long-term social and environmental impact. Pauline posed a critical question: Is Global Gateway truly focused on development, or is it primarily a vehicle to boost trade? The panel agreed that a risk the strategy brings is its reframing of EU external relations in a way that prioritises investment over genuine development aid.
Limited Access for Civil Society
The speakers also highlighted the limited role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Global Gateway dialogue platform. This platform consults with CSOs, local authorities (LAs), and regional, global and European civil society on policy issues in the context of the Global Gateway strategy. However, it was noted that meetings are infrequent—only once per year—and that information sharing is minimal. Jaime emphasised that CSO involvement so far has been largely symbolic, not substantive. While it’s positive that the EU aims to move away from top-down approaches, more meaningful inclusion of civil society and local communities is essential. Greater transparency, consistent coordination, and open communication must be established.
Challenges in Partner Countries and Fragile States
The perception of Global Gateway from partner countries is essential and highly relevant to the strategy. Research shows that many partners perceive the Global Gateway to be a rebranded version of existing practices. It hereby lacks clarity and genuine local engagement. This makes it more so a marketing strategy, instead of a coherent programme with a positive impact. The funding mechanisms are unclear, echoing earlier concerns about strategic ambiguity. Moreover, the Global Gateway is often seen as arriving too late to counter China’s well-established Belt and Road Initiative effectively.
In Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and fragile states, reliance on loans, despite the European Commission’s claims, has sparked fears about exacerbating debt stress. The report by Oxfam, Eurodad, and Counter Balance confirms that conditional loans have, in fact, been implemented in Global Gateway projects. This approach raises doubts about its suitability for such fragile contexts.
Looking Ahead: Opportunities for Influence
Despite these concerns, the experts still see potential for positive change. Pauline emphasised that the strategy is still evolving. Therefore, civil society has a crucial window of opportunity to shape its direction. She urged CSOs to actively engage in upcoming processes and to leverage their collective strength through CSO coalitions.
Antonio advocated for the placement of Global Gateway within a clear legal framework to ensure accountability and prevent its misuse as a vague label. Jaime expressed optimism about CONCORD’s recommendations, which include:
- Enhancing transparency and accountability
- Deepening civil society engagement at all levels
- Promoting equal partnerships with Global South stakeholders
- Strengthening governance through parliamentary oversight
- Refocusing on human development and reducing global inequalities
Conclusion
The masterclass underscored both the challenges and opportunities posed by the Global Gateway. As the strategy continues to take shape, sustained and critical engagement from civil society will be essential. This ensures genuine contribution of the strategy to inclusive, sustainable development rather than narrow and short-term economic interests.