BLOG POST

What the Global Gateway Flagship Projects Tell Us about the EU’s Priorities

As the new European Commission embarks on its five-year term, it’s clear that the Global Gateway is a key vehicle through which the Commission will foster the EU’s economic and geopolitical interests abroad. The EU’s Global Gateway aims to mobilize up to EUR 300 billion of investments in partner countries between 2021 and 2027 in an effort described as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Three years after its launch, the European Commission has hailed the Global Gateway as a success, with 84 “flagship projects” approved in 2023 and 134 in 2024, from vaccine production in Rwanda to the exploitation of Bolivian lithium, from the Lobito Corridor across the DRC, Zambia, and Angola to the electrification of public transport in Kenya. While substantive information about the flagship projects is scarce, a new list of 46 Global Gateway flagship projects for 2025 is now available.  

The list of flagship projects selected for 2025 is supposed to help showcase the kind of investments the EU is offering to its partners across the globe. But the proposed projects for 2025 continue the trend set in 2023 and 2024 of investments largely focused on physical infrastructure and less on important human capital dimensions, despite the clear evidence that economic and social returns to infrastructure would be significantly higher if accompanied by similar levels of investment in health and education. In this blog, we look at the geographical and sectoral distribution of the projects and highlight the scant investment in human capital and the perpetual problem of the lack of transparency of the projects, their financials, their design, and their impact. 

A focus on sub-Saharan Africa 

The majority of Global Gateway flagship projects are in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for roughly 45 percent of the total share of projects across 2025, 2024, and 2023. Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia follow with between 10 and 20 percent of projects (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Geographic breakdown of Global Gateway flagship projects (2023, 2024, 2025) 

Bar graph illustrating the geographic breakdown of Global Gateway flagship projects from 2023 to 2025, with Africa/Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) having the largest share.

Source: Authors computation of 2023, 2024 and 2025 Global Gateway flagship projects

Prioritizing physical infrastructure over human capital 

The flagship projects are overwhelmingly dominated by investments in physical infrastructure. Across the three years, on average, around half of the flagship projects are in the climate and energy sector, while less than 10 percent are in education and research. Projects in the health sector only make up slightly more than 10 percent of the total share of projects (see Figure 2).  

Investments in infrastructure, such as energy or transport, have a clear cost-benefit rationale. They produce mainly economic returns and are thus more likely to attract private finance to complement public resources. This is because economic outcomes are much easier to monetise than social ones. So, the outcome of a project to build a bridge is easier to observe and measure than the outcome of a project to prevent girls dropping out of school. However, what this fails to recognise is that infrastructure creates demand for a more educated workforce that sees higher incomes if there is a good stock of infrastructure. Thus, the economic and social returns to infrastructure would be significantly higher when accompanied by similar levels of investment in health and education. Without these complementary investments, returns to infrastructure will be low and employment growth will stall.   

Figure 2. Sectoral breakdown of Global Gateway flagship projects (2023, 2024, 2025) 

Bar graph showing the breakdown of Global Gateway flagship projects by sector (2023-2025), with climate and energy projects having the largest share.

Source: Authors computation of 2023, 2024 and 2025 Global Gateway flagship projects

The perpetual problem of lack of transparency 

The lack of transparency of Global Gateway projects continues to raise alarm bells, including in a recent European Court of Auditors report. While the European Commission is forthcoming with short descriptions of the project, we continue to be left in the dark on the details, including project selection criteria and processes, structure, financials, and implementation timelines. And crucially, while projects for 2024 and 2025 continue to be proposed, there has yet to be any proper assessment of the development impact of any of the 2023 projects.  

The Global Gateway was billed as way for the EU to realise its ambitions of becoming a geopolitical heavyweight, by offering an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in the global infrastructure landscape. The Global Gateway was supposed to set itself apart from Chinese finance by emphasising the delivery of infrastructure to the highest standards of sustainability, governance, and transparency. All three standards continue to remain elusive. Three years in, it is clear that the investments tend to be focused on physical infrastructure with little regard to sustainability and human development. While individual projects financed might include “skills and technology transfer” provisions, the infrastructure financing initiatives themselves have generally not been designed to incorporate components that enhance human capital endowment. And while the Global Gateway’s focus is on building strategic corridors to reinforce Europe’s economic security, ownership and the interests of the EU’s partners are crucial to making it a success. But with over 200 initiatives in play, we are still in the dark as to how the investments are being designed and implemented, including the extent to which they are jointly owned by partner countries.  

Disclaimer

CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.


Image credit for social media/web: Ivan/ Adobe Stock