A whitepaper by civil society groups considers the EU’s Global Gateway fund strategy as ineffective and possibly ‘neocolonial’.
- The fund, meant to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative, mainly focuses on digital, climate, energy, transport, health, and education infrastructure in developing countries.
- Approximately 49% of the Global Gateway projects are aimed at climate and energy, but results have been underwhelming.
- Critics indicate an over-reliance on private sector finance, which has proven inadequate, jeopardising the sustainability of these energy projects.
- There is growing concern that the strategy prioritises European business interests over genuine development goals in the global south.
In an evaluative whitepaper, several civil society organisations have raised pointed critiques of the European Union’s Global Gateway fund strategy, characterising it as potentially ‘neocolonial’. This ambitious initiative is devised to contrast with China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative, aiming to promote infrastructural advancements across underdeveloped nations via strategic investments in key sectors.
Central to the Global Gateway’s ambitions are climate and energy projects. They account for nearly half of the 225 proposed initiatives, centred around frameworks known as Just Energy Transitions Partnerships (JETPs). These partnerships endeavour to mobilise investment from affluent northern nations to assist the global south in transitioning from coal to renewable energy. However, the anticipated success is reportedly lacking.
A significant shortcoming, as highlighted in the report, is the over-reliance on private sector participation. The funding thus garnered has fallen short, raising concerns about the feasibility and longevity of these transition projects. Alarmingly, some nations involved continue to operate fossil fuel plants despite the JETP agreements.
The report criticises the adoption of complex financial structures that blend public and private finance, which inadvertently exacerbate debt in economically strained global south countries. This, combined with the strategic insertion of European companies into project benefits, raises alarms of a ‘neocolonial’ agenda, according to the paper.
Ultimately, the critique hinges on the perception that the Global Gateway strategy might be serving the European commercial sector more effectively than it serves the poverty-stricken communities it purports to help, thereby casting doubt on the EU’s commitment to equitable development.
The EU’s Global Gateway strategy, while well-intentioned, appears to be marred by strategic missteps and is facing criticism for its prioritisation of European interests at the expense of effective development in the global south.
