MENA Fem Movement for Economical, Development and Ecological Justice
follow-up letter to Commissioner @Síkela
Blog

Key concerns about the Global Gateway remain unaddressed by the European Commission

MenaFem sent on the behalf of 49 civil society organisations a follow-up letter to Commissioner @Síkela after his response to our initial concerns on the Global Gateway.

While we welcome this dialogue, many of the core issues remain unaddressed. We are deeply concerned that the Global Gateway risks reinforcing extractive and neocolonial dynamics rather than building equitable and rights-based partnerships.

Our key concerns:

  • No clear development additionality or due diligence in the use of guarantees and blending finance
  • Lack of transparency on project financing and decision-making
  • Lack of civil society involvement across the project cycle
  • Gaps between EU’s human rights commitments and practical implementation
  • Export-oriented focus, especially on raw materials and green hydrogen projects

We hope this exchange marks the start of a more consistent and accountable dialogue with civil society on the future of EU development finance.

Read the full letter

We welcome Commissioner Síkela’s response to our previous joint letter, where over 50 civil society organisations sounded the alarm on the Global Gateway’s impact on the Global South. Unfortunately, many of the core concerns we raised remain unaddressed. In our follow-up letter, we stress that the Global Gateway falls short of responding to the real needs and priorities of partner countries.

Our main concerns include:

  • The lack of clear development additionality and due diligence in the use of guarantees and blended finance — tools that continue to serve private and geopolitical interests rather than public goods.
  • A serious lack of transparency, including missing information on project selection, financing, and implementing actors.
  • The failure to ensure meaningful participation of civil society and local actors throughout the project cycle.
  • The growing dissonance between the European Union’s stated commitment to a human rights-based approach in external action and the lack of specific binding policies of the EIB and other implementing institutions to put this into action and allow for external scrutiny.
  • The focus on export-oriented, such as critical raw materials and green hydrogen, threatens to reinforce extractive and neocolonial dynamics rather than address local development priorities.

These gaps reflect structural flaws in the Global Gateway’s approach. Without structural reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with partner countries and local communities priorities, the Global Gateway risks reinforcing a neocolonial model of development, one that prioritises EU geopolitical and economic interests over human rights, democratic ownership, and the real needs of communities on the ground.

We hope this exchange marks the beginning of a more consistent and accountable dialogue with civil society on the future direction of EU development finance.