The Implementation of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe

The European Parliament adopted by 449 to 81 with 91 abstentions, a resolution on the implementation of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe.

General considerations

Parliament welcomed the Commission’s proposal for a revision of the MFF 2021-2027 with additional funding for Heading 6, since the current financial programming is insufficient for the Instrument, which is underfunded, and should better reflect the geopolitical ambitions of the EU and its global commitments.

Members took note of the additional funds proposed by the Commission for Heading 6, of which EUR 10.5 billion would be allocated to  responding to the external dimension of migration, including external challenges, EUR 3 billion to the Instrument’s ‘Emerging challenges and priorities’ cushion and EUR 2.5 billion to the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve. They also underlined the need to review the EU’s external and development policies in light of the funding gap, the increasing inequalities between and within countries and global food insecurity.

Parliament reaffirmed, in the face of the ongoing Russian war of aggression, its unwavering support for Ukraine, in all its dimensions, including humanitarian assistance, recovery, reconstruction and modernisation, in the face of the ongoing Russian war of aggression.

It stressed, however, that this support should not come at the expense of ODA, other partners and third countries who are adversely affected by the Russian war of aggression and whose EU funding should not be cut.

Parliament also called for a thorough evaluation of the Instrument’s resources which should also determine whether they are sufficient to achieve the objectives set under it.

While welcoming the consolidation of most of the EU’s external action in a single Instrument, gradually streamlining and harmonising the numerous previous instruments, Members are of the opinion that although this simplification has enhanced flexibility and efficiency, it has not been accompanied by sufficient levels of effective accountability and transparency. They underlined in this regard that measures can only be considered effective when this can be proven by clear and comparable monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Parliament expressed deep concern about the escalation of geopolitical turmoil, authoritarian trends and recent attacks globally on the foundations of democracy and the rule of law. It called for the mid-term evaluation of the Global Europe instrument to evaluate in depth the Instrument’s capacity to achieve the EU’s overall external policy goals, and particularly the objective of contributing to the promotion of multilateralism and sustainable development and of protecting, promoting and advancing democracy, the rule of law and human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Parliament strongly reaffirmed the commitment set out in the Instrument to eradicate poverty, fight climate change and food insecurity, fight inequalities and discrimination and promote sustainable human development; recalls the commitment made by the EU and the Member States to increase their ODA to 0.7 % of gross national income by 2030, including contributing at least 20 % of the ODA funded under the Instrument to social inclusion and human development, such as health, education, nutrition and social protection, and providing 0.2 % of the EU’s gross national income as ODA to the least developed countries. It underlined that the EFSD+ should aim to support investments as a means of contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Securing the necessary resources and mobilising investments

Parliament stressed that under no circumstances should the mid-term review of the MFF for 2024 lead to a reduction or reallocation of the instrument's funds between long-term thematic and geographical programmes devoted to sustainable development. According to the resolution, the lack of funds creates a dangerous gap between the EU's ambition and its ability to deliver on its promises.

Members recalled that private sector support complements but does not replace public investment, particularly in essential services such as health, education and social protection, which offer crucial long-term prospects for lifting people out of poverty. They called for the EFSD+ not to finance investments that have a negative impact on the achievement of the SDGs, in particular with regard to the fight against climate change.

Parliament welcomed the creation of EIB Global, which has been operational since 1 January 2022. Since the new development arm was set up, EIB Global has provided more than EUR 10 billion in 2022, including for Ukraine and the Global Gateway strategy. Members reiterated the importance of the EU budget as the sole guarantor of the EIB's lending activity outside the Union in support of EU policies. They called for an increase in the guarantees granted to the EIB from the EU budget, to enable it to continue its vital operations in the public and private sectors in Ukraine and to expand its activities in the Global South.

The Commission was also asked to clarify the roles within the Team Europe strategy and to propose a mechanism to increase the transparency and democratic scrutiny of initiatives.

Parliamentary scrutiny

Members called on the Commission to:

- provide a consistent interinstitutional information flow, with Parliament being kept informed of investment projects, including Global Gateway projects, and to make the Result Management Framework fully available;

- significantly improve the timely provision of documentation to Parliament in advance of the high-level geopolitical dialogue, as well as the way in which it takes into account Parliament’s recommendations;

- provide, following consultations with Parliament, a comprehensible, clear and complete overview, in a single document, of the financial instruments, their relationship with each other and the different actors involved, as well as a complete and precise overview of grants and guarantees and how they are covered.

Parliament should be fully involved in the programming exercise for the second half of the MFF and for multiannual indicative programmes for 2025-2027.

Way forward

Parliament believes that the mid-term review should include the necessary legislative changes to the Instrument and to IPA III, so that the related regulations take account of the new status of Ukraine and Moldova as candidate countries for EU membership. It also considered that the geopolitical challenges that have arisen as a result of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the malign influence and growing firmness of the People's Republic of China call for a considerable increase in the instrument's budget.

Lastly, Parliament noted that pilot projects and preparatory actions are new initiatives that could be transformed into EU funding programmes if they prove successful. It stressed that they represent an opportunity for Parliament to present programmes that would not otherwise have been funded.