Introduction
The Global Gateway is the European Union’s biggest development and connectivity strategy, launched in December 2021, with the aim of mobilizing up to €300 billion in digital, climate and energy, health, transport, education and research areas between 2021 and 2027. The recent Eurodad conference on the Global Gateway, held the day before the Global Gateway Forum in Brussels, gathered voices from civil society, partner countries and the European Union to assess what the strategy has achieved nearly five years after its launch. The core question was whether the Global Gateway is truly the right approach for Europe – and for the future of international cooperation.

Global Gateway: Promises and Critiques
The debate revealed widespread concerns from civil society within and beyond partner countries. Frank Vanaerschot, director of Counterbalance, argued that the Global Gateway’s development budget primarily serves the EU’s own geopolitical and economic interests, marginalizing local communities and making the process undemocratic. The EU’s focus on scale-up and acceleration shrinks transparency and accountability – while setting unrealistic targets –, and the question of weak human rights and environmental due diligence by investment bodies such as the European Investment Bank raises concerns. In energy and climate projects, he warned, the strategy perpetuates an “extractive logic” rather than acknowledging Europe’s historic responsibility to support sustainable development in the global South.
Oxfam’s Southern Africa extractive industry advisor, Veronica Fadzai Zano, mentioned the €600 million Lobito Corridor project involving the DRC, Zambia, and Angola which would enhance trade in copper and lithium value chains. For her, hopes for a non-extractive, inclusive model remain unfulfilled, with civil society excluded from decision-making and Africa at risk of becoming a “battlefield” for geopolitical competition. This sentiment was shared by Kaisha Atakhanova, Director of ARGO Regional Programs. The Gateway, presented as a “national success” linking Kazakhstan to the European Green Transition, faces major issues of transparency, environmental supervision and undemocratic processes. Several projects threaten the fragile Caspian ecosystem, raising fears of long-term environmental damage outweighing short-term economic gains.
MENAFem researcher Hikma Bachegour warned that “the current European approach risks replicating […] green colonialism”, with Africa providing raw materials and clean energy for Europe’s transition without tangible local benefits. In Morocco, major hydrogen projects such as Chbika display unequal power dynamics and reliance on loans rather than grants, deepening debts and austerity pressures. She called for a “co-created” just transition, based on “common but differentiated responsibility”.
MEP Udo Bullman described the Global Gateway as “the external action strategy of the forthcoming years” but underlined its lack of democratic governance and accountability, with the European Parliament holding observer status rather than co-decision power, despite its legal duty to scrutinize spending. Bullman also worries that current practices may fail to meet Official Development Assistance (ODA) standards and urged the European Commission to prove that existing projects genuinely benefit partner countries by supporting local SMEs, decent employment and vocational training.
Among these insights and concerns, the most worrying element was the response – or lack thereof – from Magnus Guldberg, Embassy Secretary at the Danish Permanent Representation to the EU and member of the Global Gateway working group. He firmly believes that the strategy is the right approach for Europe amidst shifting geopolitical conditions, benefiting both the Union and partner countries (despite disagreeing voices from the ground). Albeit challenges in balancing public and private investment and full civil society inclusion, he maintained the Gateway remains an inclusive, value-based project. However, his limited engagement with the concerns shared by civil society panelists and early departure from the conference left key questions unanswered.

Conclusion
The Global Gateway, though ambitious, remains Eurocentric and weak in democratic legitimacy, with limited oversight, opaque governance, and minimal local participation. Critics warn that it risks deepening green dependency instead of fostering a just transition, as benefits concentrate among elites rather than local industries and communities. The EU’s offer seems to be losing its appeal, especially with imminent social spending cuts and a new defense-oriented budget. Whether the Global Gateway can live up to its promises remains uncertain — as Bachegour concluded, Europe can make a real difference, but only if it truly chooses to.