On Global Gateway -– past impacts and future orientation

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on Global Gateway -– past impacts and future orientation

(2025/2073(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 209, 212 and 322(1) thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision No 466/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/20091 (NDICI-Global Europe Regulation),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1529 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 September 2021 establishing the Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance (IPA III)2,

– having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 1 December 2021 entitled ‘The Global Gateway’ (JOIN(2021)0030),

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 16 July 2025 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Global Europe (COM(2025)0551),

– having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 2 October 2024 entitled ‘Building sustainable international partnerships as a Team Europe’ (JOIN(2024)0025),

– having regard to the Council conclusions of 21 June 2024 on the mid-term evaluation of the NDICI-Global Europe instrument, and of 21 November 2023 on the Team Europe approach,

– having regard to the Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service3,

– having regard to the Council note of 28 October 2022 regarding working arrangements on Global Gateway governance,

– having regard to the joint statement of 30 June 2017 by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, entitled ‘The New European Consensus on Development – ‘Our world, our dignity, our future’‘4,

– having regard to United Nations Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 entitled ‘Transforming our World – the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (2030 Agenda), adopted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York and establishing the sustainable development goals (SDGs),

– having regard to its resolution of 24 November 2022 on the future European Financial Architecture for Development5,

– having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2023 on the implementation of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe6,

– having regard to its resolution of 17 January 2024 on the security and defence implications of China’s influence on critical infrastructure in the European Union7,

– having regard to its resolution of 17 January 2024 on building a comprehensive European port strategy8,

– having regard to its resolution of 2 April 2025 on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy – annual report 20249,

– having regard to its resolution 2 April 2025 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 202410,

– having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2025 on the control of the financial activities of the European Investment Bank – annual report 202311,

– having regard to its decision of 7 May 2025 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023, Section III – Commission, executive agencies and the ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds12,

– having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2025 on implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals in view of the 2025 High-Level Political Forum13,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development under Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development (A10-0000/2025),

A. whereas the Global Gateway strategy was established on 1 December 2021, with the aim of becoming the Union’s flagship framework for sustainable connectivity and global investment; whereas it is a strategy and policy initiative, and in itself not an instrument or regulation; whereas the Global Gateway draws on the financial architecture for the EU’s external action, especially the NDICI-Global Europe instrument, for its legal framework and funding;

B. whereas in an environment of increased geopolitical rivalry and uncertainty, the Global Gateway strategy aims to increase the EU’s geopolitical weight in the global arena;

C. whereas geopolitical influence and the ability to conclude long-term partnerships for mutual benefit are largely dependent on economic strength and access to markets; whereas Global Gateway partnerships and investments should rely on reciprocity and mutual benefit and interest;

D. whereas the primary objective of EU development cooperation is the reduction and long-term eradication of poverty, requiring cooperation on education and health;

E. whereas the Global Gateway’s success relies on the Team Europe approach;

F. whereas Parliament has repeatedly welcomed the Global Gateway, while pointing out deficiencies in its governance;

G. whereas Parliament should have a stronger role in Global Gateway policy and governance;

Stocktaking, strategic objectives and vision

1. Recalls that the Global Gateway initiative is a strategic geopolitical concept integrating foreign, economic and development policies, including the EU’s engagement in climate protection and adaptation, the digital transformation and health and education, aiming at establishing long-term, strategic, mutually beneficial partnerships with a particular view to building and securing supply chains and resilience in both the EU and partner countries, notably through stronger private sector involvement;

2. Underlines that in times of new geostrategic challenges such as the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and deepening cuts in official development assistance (ODA), EU foreign and security policy and development actors must coordinate their actions in order to increase the EU’s presence and visibility worldwide by means of mutually beneficial investments that expand the Union’s influence and weight, and promote inclusive growth in partner countries and progress towards achieving the SDGs;

3. Believes that the Global Gateway has the potential to accompany, facilitate and strengthen sustainable European investments globally, which provide partner countries with the opportunity to develop their industries and create added value and jobs, and give those countries access to leading markets in the EU;

4. Takes note of the political will of the President of the Commission to scale up the Global Gateway during the 2024-2029 legislative term; notes that over 270 flagship projects have been identified since 2022; further notes that EUR 306 billion had been mobilised by the end of 2024 according to the Commission; deplores the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding track record and how the figure of EUR 306 billion was reached;

5. Notes that project selection has followed an overly centralised, top-down, approach; notes that the concept and criteria for Global Gateway projects have remained unclear; favours a model in which demand in partner countries is matched with offers from European businesses;

6. Notes that the Commission proposal for the new Global Europe instrument fails to include any substantive codifying provisions on the Global Gateway; states Parliament’s willingness as co-legislator to come up with clarifying proposals;

7. Calls for effective measurement of the impact of Global Gateway projects locally, including their social outcomes; recommends monitoring the degree and success of the involvement of European companies;

8. Calls for improved transparency, democratic accountability and information, robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and evidence about the benefits of Global Gateway projects for local enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), local communities and the workforce in partner countries; invites the Commission to monitor the projects and publish such evidence to ensure that Global Gateway projects have local ‘trickle-down’ and positive knock-on effects for wider segments of society; echoes concerns from studies and investigations on external investments sometimes finding limited evidence of local benefits including for SMEs and communities in partner countries;

9. Regrets that the preference laid down in Article 12(2) of the NDICI-Global Europe Regulation for joint programming and implementation between the Commission and the Member States has not been successful, and has been replaced by looser Team Europe cooperation; asks that this joint programming imperative be integrated in the future Global Europe instrument and adequately implemented, as consistently requested by stakeholders;

Geopolitical importance of the Global Gateway

10. Calls for the EU to strengthen its strategic position, partnerships and global credibility by offering, through the Global Gateway, a sustainable, transparent and democratic alternative to competing infrastructure initiatives;

11. Invites the Commission to design Global Gateway projects to ensure strong complementarity with initiatives promoting a rules-based international order and multilateralism in the face of bloc formation and increased tensions;

12. Calls for more effective alignment between the Global Gateway and EU common foreign and security policy and the SDGs; calls for the EU to make greater use of its normative strength, embedding democracy, the rule of law, human rights and sustainable development as cornerstones of all Global Gateway projects;

13. Calls on the Commission to promote the Global Gateway effectively and rapidly as a sustainable alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative;

14. Calls for investments in energy security, critical raw materials and the green transition to be prioritised; stresses the need for Global Gateway investments to help close infrastructure and inequality gaps, including those related to digital and energy poverty, particularly in rural and peripheral areas;

15. Calls for deeper coordination with partners, including the G7, the G20 and the UN, with a view to maximising the collective impact and ensuring coherent standards, financing and project implementation;

16. Highlights the need for continued cooperation with the UN; calls on the Commission and all Global Gateway partners to build on the UN’s local knowledge and its role in creating an enabling environment and promoting inclusive development;

Development cooperation

17. Stresses that the EU and its Member States remain the largest providers of ODA globally; underlines that the EU has a major asset in its ability to provide access to an attractive internal market, while being able to understand and respect local realities as well as to respond to needs for human development and local job creation;

18. Underlines that EU development cooperation must continue to provide support to partner countries in contexts where the Global Gateway is not an adequate answer to their needs; stresses that fragile contexts require specific attention and types of investment, such as grants; underlines that ODA remains an essential tool for supporting sectors such as healthcare, education, agriculture and social protection, which are prerequisites for stable, prosperous societies;

19. Underlines the importance of the Global Gateway’s 360-degree approach, complementing investments with support for the building of a regulatory environment in line with international standards, including on good governance, as well as support for the development of technology, skills and education;

20. Points out that many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, face high levels of public debt which hamper their capability to invest and to deliver social and basic services; underlines that Global Gateway projects should not worsen this ‘debt-trap’; suggests that the Global Gateway should offer debt-for-nature or debt-for-climate swaps;

21. Welcomes initiatives that aim to support developing countries in overcoming obstacles to accessing financing; acknowledges the importance of grants in unlocking other forms of finance;

22. Stresses the need for early and adequate consultation with partner countries in the framework of Global Gateway governance, before setting up projects; highlights the importance of SMEs in local job creation and value addition;

23. Asks the Commission to involve local and regional authorities more deeply and at an earlier stage in project design, decision-making and funding;

Governance and policy coherence

24. Recommends revising the Global Gateway governance structure;

25. Regrets that the Global Gateway Board has only met twice so far, in December 2022 and October 2025;

26. Notes that the Board should function in a complementary manner to the future Global Europe Investment Board; asks that the method for selecting flagship projects be based on objective and qualitative criteria while avoiding the detrimental proliferation of projects; insists on promoting ‘European content’ in flagship projects and on clearly indicating their benefits in partner countries;

27. Proposes that the Global Gateway Board become the central operational body for the implementation of the Global Gateway, the selection of flagship projects and the provision of adequate framework conditions and financing for them;

28. Holds the opinion that the approach to the Global Gateway should be changed from a top-down to a demand-driven approach; recalls that stronger European private sector involvement is at the core of the Global Gateway; suggests inviting representatives of partner countries to Board meetings, on an ad hoc basis, including representatives of local authorities, civil society and business;

29. Calls on the Commission and all stakeholders involved to ensure the meaningful consultation and participation of the Global Gateway Civil Society and Local Authorities Advisory Platform, and to create the conditions for the platform to play its due role beyond providing a rubber stamp;

30. Stresses the need for more frequent and operational consultations with the Business Advisory Group (BAG) aimed at decision-making and concrete results; insists that potential conflicts of interest must be addressed, including through financial transparency requirements;

31. Believes that stronger involvement of Parliament is essential to ensure the Global Gateway’s democratic legitimacy and policy coherence, and to enhance its visibility; underlines, as the Global Gateway becomes increasingly owned by Member States, the value of streamlining the scrutiny and oversight cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments in order to mirror the Team Europe approach; calls on Parliament to ensure adequate consultation, participation and representation, including in the future more operational Board;

32. Takes note of the newly created Global Gateway Investment Hub and welcomes the intended streamlining of project applications; notes with concern, however, the lack of representation from partner countries, particularly of civil society;

33. Points out that projects need to be economically viable and that the viability of Global Gateway projects depends on coherent legal frameworks and policies, such as trade agreements, tax policies, offtake agreements, emissions trading systems and carbon border adjustment mechanisms;

34. Welcomes recent improvements to provide information on the Global Gateway on the Commission’s websites but underlines the need for more detailed information on Global Gateway projects, funding sources, ex ante impact assessments, stakeholder participation, implementing partners, local added value and expected as well as measured outcomes;

35. Calls for the Global Gateway to be codified and integrated into the Global Europe regulation to be adopted before the next multiannual financial framework for 2028-2034; is of the opinion that such an improvement is urgently needed to ensure the legal certainty and transparency of the mandate;

Financial tools and future funding

36. Emphasises that the financial instruments available at national and European level for Global Gateway projects must be adjusted to take account of the strategic context, the supply chain imperative, the sector specificities and the competitive environment;

37. Underlines that procurement policies, due diligence processes and the conception of tenders have a strong influence on the success or failure of Global Gateway projects; calls for more frequent use of criteria on quality, innovation, resilience and European participation;

38. Calls on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment of the European Fund for Sustainable Development and the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus, which should form the basis of the next Global Europe Fund supporting the Global Gateway in the next multiannual financial framework; insists that any future financial instruments must be based on a sound assessment of existing financing;

39. Recalls that EIB Global, the European Investment Bank’s development arm, is one of the key implementers of the Global Gateway and is therefore expected to apply the highest standards of transparency and accountability in its projects; encourages the Commission to maximise cooperation with the European Investment Bank as the EU’s bank;

40. Calls on the Commission to develop new instruments based on an evidence-based framework to monitor and assess the distribution and impact of interventions in partner countries, particularly in areas such as job creation, education, living standards and the development of local enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises;

°

° °

41. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the President of the European Council, the Council and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Four years after its inception and one year into the new Commission’s term in which the Commissioner for International Partnerships has been tasked with scaling up Global Gateway as his main mission, the European Parliament has decided to have a closer look into the current state of the implementation the Initiative. We are enacting this in a cross-committee and cross-party approach, since the Global Gateway Initiative constitutes a new, long-term approach to European external action by intentionally integrating development, economic and geostrategic aspects in a holistic way. In this new approach, the European private sector plays a key role. To make this new approach a real success, the inclusion of civil society as well as local authorities and communities is equally important.

Global Gateway seeks to enhance the EU’s geopolitical influence by building long-term, reciprocal, and mutually beneficial partnerships, promoting sustainable development and inclusive growth.

In the many encounters and conversations Rapporteurs had with third countries, businesses, civil society representatives and academia, the need for the European Union to propose a new, interest-, demand- and value-driven offer to third countries was clearly indicated. It has also become an objective necessity after the COVID crisis, which revealed and exacerbated the vulnerabilities of the EU’s supply chains and highlighted the need for a diversification of the European economy regarding its goal of green and digital transformation and the new security imperatives.

Drawing legally and financially on the NDICI - Global Europe instrument, the Initiative has made visible progress including over 270 Global Gateway flagship projects EUR 306 billion mobilised - according to the Commission at the second Global Gateway Forum, held in Brussels in October 2025 on which occasion also a Global Gateway Investment Hub has been presented.

The Forum, GG projects on the ground as well as the experiences of the stakeholders in the GG structures and procedures nevertheless point at major challenges related to governance, transparency and accountability.

Global Gateway’s overly Commission-driven, centralised, top-down structure has limited responsiveness to partner countries and private sector needs and weak ownership by local actors. The selection of flagship projects does not yet, follow transparent criteria. Moreover, the participation of European stakeholders in projects and the benefits for the EU remain unclear, besides information that Chinese companies are profiting from the Global Gateway Initiative.

The Rapporteurs reckon that a shift towards a participatory, bottom-up model, matching partner countries priorities with European expertise and private sector offer is of utmost importance. In this regard, private sector logics needs to be better understood and faster addressed. Rules, tools and procedures must be adapted to increased European business involvement in the EU’s cooperation with strategic partners. Moreover, the Global Gateway Civil Society and Local Authorities Platform must move beyond a symbolic or consultative role also with regard to monitoring whether investments deliver tangible local benefits, lead to sustainable job and value chain creation, are socially inclusive and strengthen social and economic resilience globally.

The Rapporteurs primarily suggest entrusting the Global Gateway Board with decision-making powers and capacities, enabling it to run the initiative operationally, starting with increasing the frequency of meetings. At the time of drafting this report, the Board had only met twice in four years. Parliament’s role and presence in the Board must be strengthened, too, ensuring policy coherence, democratic legitimacy, monitoring of implementation, impact assessment and project outcomes, political support and accountability. Any structural adjustment should aim to enhance the EU’s existing economic, financial and technical "firepower", at national and supranational level, through better coordination, bundling and mutual re-enforcement as well as the decrease of bureaucratic hurdles and regulatory adjustments.

Looking forward, the Rapporteurs point out that in the next Global Europe regulation (2028–2034) a reformed Global Gateway initiative needs to be codified ensuring clear legal mandates, stronger parliamentary scrutiny, transparent funding mechanisms and inclusive and effective stakeholder participation.

Global Gateway’s geopolitical potential will remain significant provided in-depth reforms are undertaken in the upcoming months: Only then, the EU will come closer to its goal to become a strong strategic partner offering a partnership-based alternative to competing initiatives like China's Silk and Belt Road Initiative while advancing the Sustainable Development Goals and reinforcing the EU's vision of a fair and rules-based international order.