On Thursday 26 March, MEPs adopted by a comfortable majority (371 votes in favour, 146 against, 80 abstentions) the report by Chloe Ridel (S&D, French) and Hildegard Bentele (EPP, German) calling for greater transparency and democratic control of the European Union’s external investment programme, Global Gateway, to ensure that it supports sustainable development in partner countries. Global Gateway was launched in 2021 with the aim of mobilising up to €300 billion of investment before 2027 – a milestone reached last autumn (see EUROPE 13727/27).
“We set out clear demands to guide EU investment in our partners’ infrastructure: full transparency on financing, effective parliamentary oversight, systematic impact assessments, strict alignment with sustainable development goals, and above all, genuine participation by civil society and local actors”, said Ms Ridel after the vote.
“The new governance structure proposed by Parliament aims at faster decisions, more frequent and fruitful discussions, more transparency, more clearly defined projects, and more alignment with partner and member state policies”, said Ms Bentele.
According to MEPs, the Global Gateway initiative should focus on investments in energy, critical raw materials and the ecological transition, in order to reduce the Union’s dependence on its foreign competitors.
Furthermore, in the context of the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), MEPs believe that the initiative should be codified and integrated into the proposal for a regulation on the ‘Global Europe’ instrument, which must be adopted before the next MFF (see EUROPE 13805/16).
To see the text adopted by the European Parliament: https://aeur.eu/f/lcs
Rejections in the Chamber. In a debate preceding the vote, MEPs from the European Parliament’s most nationalist and conservative groups categorically rejected the Global Gateway initiative.
“The project selection criteria are incomprehensible”, said Thierry Mariani (PfE, French), rapporteur for the opinion of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA), criticising the European Commission’s lack of transparency regarding the more than 300 billion euros mobilised through public subsidies and private investment under the Team Europe scheme (see EUROPE 13727/27).
“We are talking about funds used within ideological frameworks, with the imposition of multilateralism, damaging our interests, our industries and our people”, said his Portuguese counterpart António Tânger Corrêa, speaking on behalf of the PfE Group, while Marc Jongen (ESN, German) denounced the Commission’s “export of ‘woke’ values” to the detriment of a “pragmatic policy of interests”.
“The report hits the nail on the head when it criticises the lack of transparency and accountability”, said Kristoffer Storm (ECR, Danish), although he considered that the text put to the vote was insufficient to counter “the flow of migrants to Europe”.
The right wing of the European Parliament “has not understood a thing about Global Gateway”, deplored the EPP rapporteur. “European companies, including German companies, receive support when they want to expand abroad. The Internal Market is certainly important, but German jobs are also secured by export opportunities. Global Gateway also serves this purpose”, retorted Ms Bentele, addressing “Parliament’s right wing”, which, according to the Christian Democrat, had “not understood a thing about Global Gateway”.
“European investment abroad and development aid are necessary. We are not an island in the middle of the ocean”, stressed Chloe Ridel, demanding that the Commission’s strategy embody principles of solidarity, justice and dignity. “Europe will be judged by how ambitious it is, and that’s where we need to be”, she declared.
For his part, the European Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jozef Síkela, said he was determined to continue the work begun by the Commission to “boost competitiveness, resilience, sustainability, diversification” and reduce migration. (Original version in French by Bernard Denuit)