ecdpm.org

The odds are stacked against FFP The debate on FFP faces severe challenges, both politically and budget-wise. Foreign policy remains largely a national competence of EU member states, and only a few of them – namely France and Spain – have formally adopted a FFP (Sweden and the Netherlands rolled back theirs, and only Germany has an explicitly feminist development policy).

The review shows that ‘Europe finances and China builds’ is a caricature. Instead, varied arrangements exist in which Europe provides technical assistance, project development, construction capabilities, or niche technologies. In Ethiopia, the GERD, Africa’s largest (and probably most politically controversial) dam, saw the involvement of an Italian contractor for its design and engineering which was complemented by Chinese delivery on transmission infrastructure.

Photo by Andrew Sherriff, ECDPM Authors The negotiations on the future Global Europe Instrument are increasingly revealing the core political fault lines of the next EU multiannual financial framework. In this context, Alexei Jones looks at the different positions of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

Linking internal and external security A key test for the strategy will be its ability to bridge internal and external dimensions of security. Ultimately, a new security strategy goes far beyond foreign policy and concerns all instruments of power – notably defence. Today’s threats – ranging from cyberattacks and disinformation to energy insecurity and supply chain disruptions – do not respect institutional boundaries and require coordination across policy areas and actors.

In that sense, EO can create public value: broad public benefits that are widely shared, even when they do not translate into commercial revenues. But there is one recurring problem: while many EO initiatives deliver results during the pilot phase, they often struggle to remain operational as soon as the initial project funding ends. In our recent paper, we argue that the main challenge is not the lack of development finance instruments in general.

A Global Gateway approach to fragility? It highlights the efforts of the EU and EU member states made over many years to foster peace, stability and resilience, but states the need to “recalibrate its interventions and optimise its strategies” to remain a reliable and effective partner in an evolving geopolitical context confronted with multidimensional challenges of fragility. The document does not introduce any radically new ideas.

Watch our interview series here The old certainties are fading Assumptions that shaped development cooperation for much of the past four decades have broken apart: a relatively stable multilateral order, a clear hierarchy between ‘donors’ and ‘recipients,’ and the idea that poverty reduction could be pursued at arm’s length from geopolitics.

Failing to deliver full implementation, yet changing fast below the radar This tension is easy to miss when the AU is assessed only through its failures. There are many, granted. Decisions are implemented slowly, if at all. Upon leaving his function, the former AU Commission chairperson famously chastised member states for failing to implement 93% of their decisions at the Assembly level. Member states regularly protect national room for manoeuvre over continental coherence.

Authors Dossier – Last updated on 10 June 2026 Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, ECDPM has been analysing the implications of the war for EU foreign and development policy and finance,  and the design and delivery of EU support to Ukraine itself.

Ukrainian ownership is not merely a design feature. It is a structural condition for conditionality to function. The Ukraine Facility is an innovative and strategic design The Ukraine Facility, in force since March 2024, is innovative, combining macro-financial assistance, investment support and technical assistance under one framework linked to a reform agenda aligned with Ukraine's accession path.