Examining the challenges, critiques, and future paths for sustainable development in the Global South.

Have you ever wondered how the European Union (EU) navigates its relationship with the Global South? Then this article is what you are looking for. Development policy is the EU’s primary tool for promoting sustainable growth and stability in regions historically referred to as ‘developing’ or ‘least developed’. These areas include parts of Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Oceania, collectively known as the Global South. Often grouped under the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS) within the EU framework, these regions face numerous challenges. Poverty, limited access to education and healthcare, and rapid population growth are among the most pressing issues. Since its foundation, the EU has sought to maintain ties with these countries to foster sustainable development. 

However, recent shifts in the EU’s development approach have sparked debate among academics,  media, and NGOs, raising concerns about whether EU development policy now prioritises strategic objectives over genuine development outcomes. This article explores whether the EU’s development policy genuinely supports long-term economic growth and human development in other countries or if the focus is on benefiting the EU itself. 

Development Policy: Today and in the Past 

The foundation of EU development policy can be traced back to the Treaty of Rome (1957), which established the European Development Fund (EDF) to finance cooperation projects primarily with former European colonies in Africa. Initially, this fund operated separately from the EU budget and was funded directly by member states, aiming to address poverty and support post-colonial development. Over time, the scope, geographic reach and policy objectives expanded. Today, the EU engages with the Global South through a web of evolving funding mechanisms, frameworks, and collaborative strategies that can be challenging to navigate. Here, we will look at the most recent changes and the EU’s current structure of development policy. 

The EU’s development policy has always aimed to eradicate extreme poverty and promote sustainable development globally. The concept of sustainable development refers to a balanced approach to growth that meets current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. Politically, the EU’s development policy is based on the 2017 “New European Consensus on  Development”, reiterating the commitment to eradicating poverty while extending the areas of intervention to include peace, security, and humanitarian aid. This document represents the EU’s implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), agreed upon by the United Nations (UN) member states in 2015. These goals include youth, gender equality, migration, climate change, trade, good governance, democracy and rule of law, cooperation, and resilience. Consequently, the EU’s development policy addresses global challenges like migration, climate change, and inequality, indicating a broader and more integrated approach to development. 

Development funding and cooperation are primarily implemented through the Samoa Partnership  Agreement. In November 2023, the EU and its 27 member states renewed their commitment to the  OACPS and its 79 member states in an agreement that covers democracy and human rights, sustainable economic growth and development, climate change, human and social development, peace and security and migration. Multiple conventions and agreements have existed between the EU and the OACPS (Previously ACP Group of States), with significant milestones being the Yaoundé Convention in 1963, the Lomé Convention in 1975, and the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000. The cooperative framework initially focused solely on economic and human development, but it now involves relevant political issues. Two pertinent shifts of this partnership are the regionalisation of cooperation and the introduction of a return and readmission mechanism for irregular migrants. Unlike the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, a bilateral framework, the Samoa Agreement introduces three legally binding regional protocols, each outlining specific priorities tailored to regional needs, influencing regional integration and development. One of the key strategic priorities of the general protocol is “Migration and Mobility”, which includes provisions for the return and readmission of irregular migrants. If a party fails to comply with this mechanism, measures such as suspending funds could be taken.

Today, the EU’s development initiatives are funded through the NDICI – Global Europe (Neighborhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument),  an all-encompassing financing tool introduced in 2021 to streamline and manage external action budgets. This comprehensive framework merges previously separate funds, supports thematic and regional programs, and facilitates crisis response, enabling the EU to act swiftly on global challenges. Merging the EDF with other external action tools has allowed for more centralised and flexible fund allocation, expanding the scope of recipients. 

The Team Europe approach, a collaborative effort involving different stakeholders, is the backbone of the NDICI – Global Europe. Initially introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this model pools resources from EU institutions, member states, and financial bodies to achieve a more significant impact and efficiency in developing regions through Team Europe Initiatives. The Global Gateway, an initiative aimed at mobilising investments for €300 billion for sustainable, high-standard infrastructure in energy, digitalisation, and transport in the Global South, supports this collaborative effort. Lastly, the Policy Coherence for  Development (PCD) framework complements these initiatives by ensuring that EU policies align with development goals across various sectors. This coherence is critical for sustainable and impactful development, preventing counterproductive policies that could undermine efforts to reduce poverty and improve the quality of life in partner countries. 

Unpacking the criticism on EU’s Development Policy

In recent years, the EU’s development policy has undergone notable shifts that raise questions about its underlying objectives and priorities. The transition from the Commission’s Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DG DEVCO) to the Directorate General for International Partnerships  (DG INTPA) in 2021 signals a significant reorientation in focus. This change suggests an increased emphasis on forming partnerships that yield mutual benefits, where development is increasingly intertwined with broader geopolitical and economic interests. The new name reflects a trend toward viewing development not solely as a means to eradicate poverty but also as a tool to advance EU strategic goals. 

Critics have pointed out that the EU’s approach to development is becoming more transactional. The shift highlighted in the Samoa Agreement, prioritising partnerships over eradicating poverty, illustrates this trend. While the Agreement reaffirms the commitment to human, economic and social development, it explicitly positions mutually beneficial relationships as the primary focus. This is evident in the first article of the general provisions, which states:

“The European Union and its Member States, (…) of the one part, and the Organisation of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) Members, of the other part, (…), hereby agree to conclude this Agreement, establishing a strengthened political partnership to generate mutually beneficial outcomes on common and intersecting interests and in accordance with their shared values.”

This framing highlights a significant realignment in the EU’s development priorities, raising a critical question: Is the EU genuinely committed to supporting sustainable development, or is it primarily interested in pursuing its geopolitical objectives?

The Global Gateway initiative exemplifies this dual focus. Originally conceived as a strategy to facilitate investments in infrastructure, it has been criticised for prioritising EU foreign policy objectives over development outcomes in partner countries. 

A report by Eurodad (European Network on Debt and Development), Counter Balance, and Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) has strongly criticised the initiative, highlighting its prioritisation of EU commercial and geopolitical interests over the actual development needs of local communities. The report underscores concerns that Global Gateway funding, intended as part of the EU’s development cooperation efforts to reduce poverty, is being redirected to serve broader EU strategic objectives. It is pointed out how many projects disproportionately benefit European corporations, raising concerns about a neocolonial approach. It also warns of significant risks, including deepening debt burdens in heavily indebted poor countries, environmental harm, and adverse effects on human rights and livelihoods. Moreover, the report criticises the lack of transparency and meaningful involvement of Global South countries in decision-making, undermining the initiative’s claims of fostering equal partnerships and sustainable development.

Concord, a coalition of European NGOs, has published a paper on two EU Global Gateway projects in El Salvador and Lesotho, evaluating their tackling of inequalities. These projects focus on improving access to digital technology and clean energy. However, the report highlights significant challenges, such as high costs and a lack of targeted strategies, which could risk excluding marginalised groups, including low-income families and rural communities. It urges the EU to prioritise the reduction of inequalities in all Global Gateway projects, in line with the promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the UN to “Leave No One Behind”. 

Furthermore, integrating development funding into the NDICI – Global Europe has simplified EU  financing but reduced partner countries’ ownership and agency in the development process. This specific framework shift was opposed by the OACPS in their Negotiating Mandate for the Samoa  Partnership Agreement. Without consulting and engaging with local stakeholders, projects risk missing the real needs and priorities of the communities they are meant to serve. 

The EU’s evolving development policy must also be viewed in the context of its response to global challenges, particularly migration. The current focus on addressing the root causes of irregular migration underscores a strategic reorientation, where development efforts are increasingly seen as mechanisms for managing irregular migration rather than solely as endeavours to promote human well-being. This shift can create tensions between the EU’s commitment to human rights and the realities of using development aid to achieve migration control. Some civil society voices, including  Concord’s director Tanya Cox, have raised concerns that Official Development Assistance (ODA)  funds are being repurposed to serve non-developmental objectives, such as crisis management or security initiatives. This repurposing potentially undermines the EU’s commitment to the SDGs and calls into question the credibility of the EU’s self-presentation as a global development leader. 

The EU’s development policy has the potential to bring positive change in the Global South, but it raises important questions and concerns about how to balance altruism and self-interests. The blurring of lines between development assistance and foreign policy objectives risks undermining the fundamental principles of international cooperation and solidarity. 

The Path Forward 

Several constructive solutions could be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of EU development policy. First and foremost, fostering genuine partnerships with Global South countries is crucial; this involves inclusive consultations to ensure that development projects align with local needs and priorities. Meaningful engagement with local stakeholders can help create a more participatory approach, enhancing the relevance and impact of development initiatives. Second, the EU should establish clear criteria for evaluating the effects of development initiatives on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Focusing on long-term outcomes rather than short-term gains can help ensure that projects contribute meaningfully to the well-being of partner countries. Third, transparency and accountability mechanisms should be strengthened. By allowing stakeholders to assess how funds are utilised, the EU can ensure that development aid does not inadvertently promote debt dependency or exacerbate inequalities. An open and transparent approach can build trust with partner countries and foster a sense of shared responsibility. Finally, the EU must balance its strategic interests with genuine human rights and development commitments. This requires reexamining its priorities and reaffirming its role as a supportive partner rather than a self-serving actor. By placing the needs and aspirations of partner countries at the forefront of its development policy, the EU can work toward creating sustainable and equitable partnerships. 

The EU’s development policy stands at a crossroads where aligning strategic priorities with genuine development objectives presents opportunities and challenges. While the EU has a strong legacy of cooperation with the Global South, recent shifts have sparked debate over its development agenda’s true aims. Addressing these concerns requires re-centering poverty eradication as a core objective,  ensuring local ownership, and upholding transparent and accountable practices. 

The future of EU development policy lies in balancing its ambitions on the global stage with an unwavering commitment to sustainable development, equity, and respect for the agency of partner countries. By adopting a partnership approach rooted in shared goals rather than strategic influence,  the EU can reinforce its role as a credible development actor and contribute meaningfully to a more just and equitable world.

Valeria Santi holds a Master’s degree in European Policy from the University of Amsterdam and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Sciences from the University of Bologna, with a specialisation in International Relations.

Image: Shutterstock