Report on European Union Policy Developments and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

EU External Funding Proposal: A Conflict with Sustainable Development Objectives

The “Global Europe” Fund and Migration Conditionality

The European Commission has presented a proposal for the European Union’s 2028-2034 long-term budget, which includes a €200 billion “Global Europe” fund. This initiative aims to consolidate various external funding streams, such as humanitarian aid, development finance, and support for EU candidate countries. A key and controversial component of the proposal is the introduction of conditionality linking financial aid to partner countries’ cooperation on migration management. Specifically, funding could be reduced for nations that fail to comply with EU requests for the return and readmission of their nationals.

Conflict with Core Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This proposed policy has drawn significant criticism for its potential to undermine fundamental principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Critics, including Barry Andrews, Chair of the European Parliament’s development committee, argue that the proposal subordinates the primary objective of development policy—poverty eradication—to the EU’s internal migration control objectives. This shift in focus risks diverting resources from critical anti-poverty initiatives.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): By making aid conditional, the policy could disproportionately affect the most vulnerable nations, potentially exacerbating inequalities between and within countries.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The transactional nature of the proposal is seen as a departure from a principles-based approach to international cooperation, potentially weakening the development of just and accountable institutions in partner countries.

Concerns Regarding Global Partnerships and Effectiveness

The proposal raises concerns about the EU’s role as a global partner and the policy’s overall effectiveness.

1. Undermining SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The policy could damage the EU’s credibility as a “principled partner,” particularly in regions like Africa where geopolitical competition with Russia and China is increasing. A transactional approach may weaken trust and long-term partnerships essential for achieving the SDGs.
2. Impact on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Forcing cooperation on migration could negatively impact broader relationships, potentially hampering trade flows and hindering economic growth in partner countries.
3. Questionable Efficacy: Past EU efforts to link development aid with migration policy, such as a €5 billion fund for Africa, have been assessed as not being effective, raising doubts about whether this new approach will achieve its stated goals for either development or migration management.

Despite these criticisms, the proposed overall increase in external funding has been acknowledged as a potentially positive development, provided the allocation aligns with sustainable development principles.

Geopolitical Stability and EU Sanctions Policy

Slovakia’s Position on Sanctions Against Russia

In a move relevant to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has agreed to lift his country’s opposition to a new package of EU sanctions against Russia. The sanctions are a key EU tool for promoting peace and upholding international law in response to Russian aggression.

Resolution of the Stand-off

The initial opposition from Slovakia stemmed from concerns over the premature termination of a long-term gas contract with Russia’s Gazprom. The European Commission’s proposal included a ban on new Russian gas contracts, with a phase-out period until 2027. After receiving assurances from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that Brussels would provide support if Slovakia faced legal action from Moscow, the Slovak government reversed its blocking position. The agreement is expected to be formally approved, demonstrating the EU’s capacity to maintain a unified stance on critical foreign policy matters related to regional and global stability.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

SDG 1: No Poverty

This goal is directly addressed in the article. The primary conflict highlighted is the potential shift away from poverty eradication as the main focus of the EU’s development aid.

• Explanation: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Barry Andrews, is quoted stating, “The main objective of our development policy is poverty eradication . . . not securing the European borders.” This statement explicitly connects the EU’s development funds, which are the subject of the article, to the fundamental goal of ending poverty. The controversy arises from the proposal to make these funds conditional on migration control, which critics argue “diminishes the development focus.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

This goal is relevant through its focus on migration policies. The article discusses the EU’s plan to manage migration by linking development aid to the cooperation of non-EU countries.

• Explanation: The article details the EU’s proposal to make funding “conditional on recipient countries co-operating with Brussels’ hardening migration stance, including taking back people EU countries are struggling to deport to their home countries.” This directly relates to policies governing the movement of people between countries and the management of migration, which is a key aspect of SDG 10.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

This goal is central to the article, which revolves around the nature of the partnership between the EU and recipient countries, the mobilization of financial resources, and the effectiveness of development aid.

• Explanation: The article discusses the EU’s “Global Europe fund worth €200bn,” which represents a significant mobilization of financial resources for development. Furthermore, the debate questions the nature of the partnership, with MEP Barry Andrews worrying that the EU will no longer be seen as a “principled partner” but rather as “transactional.” He warns this could “undermine the EU’s credibility as a partner” in regions like Africa, directly addressing the health and principles of the global partnership for development.

Identified SDG Targets

Targets for SDG 1: No Poverty

1. Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources… to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.
   • Explanation: The article mentions the proposal for a “Global Europe fund worth €200bn” and an “overall increase in external funding, which Brussels is proposing to double.” This is a clear example of mobilizing significant financial resources intended for development, which includes poverty eradication programs.
2. Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.
   • Explanation: The article highlights a debate about the soundness of the proposed policy framework. Critics argue that making development funds conditional on migration control is a “distraction” and “diminishes the development focus,” questioning whether the new framework is genuinely “pro-poor” or if it subordinates poverty eradication to other EU interests.

Targets for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.
   • Explanation: The EU’s proposal is a direct attempt to implement a “well-managed migration policy” from its perspective. The policy makes funding conditional on partner countries’ cooperation on “returns and readmissions of their own nationals.” The controversy discussed in the article is whether this policy is truly well-managed and responsible, or if it undermines other development objectives.

Targets for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments…
   • Explanation: The article is centered on the EU’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) through its long-term budget. The proposal to double external funding to €200bn is a significant step related to this commitment, although the conditions attached to the aid are a point of contention.
2. Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources…
   • Explanation: The article questions the quality of the partnership. The concern that the EU might be seen as “transactional” rather than a “principled partner” and that this could “undermine the EU’s credibility” speaks directly to the health and nature of the Global Partnership.

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Financial allocations for development aid: This is a direct, quantitative indicator. The article specifies the proposed “€200bn” for the Global Europe fund and a previous “€5bn fund for African countries.” This measures the volume of financial resources mobilized (relevant to Targets 1.a and 17.2).
• Rate of returns and readmissions: This is an implied performance indicator for the EU’s migration policy. The article states that funding may be cut in cases of “serious shortcomings by a partner country . . . notably on returns and readmissions of their own nationals.” This means the number or percentage of readmissions is a key metric for the EU to measure the success of its policy under Target 10.7.
• Effectiveness of development funds: This is a qualitative and analytical indicator. The article refers to a past assessment, noting that a previous fund “had not been effective.” This suggests that the evaluation of a fund’s impact and effectiveness is used as an indicator to judge policy, which is relevant to all the identified SDGs.
• EU’s credibility as a partner: This is a qualitative indicator of the health of the global partnership (Target 17.16). The concern that the policy could “undermine the EU’s credibility” and hamper its standing relative to “Russia and China” implies that diplomatic influence and partner perception are considered important measures of success.

Summary of Findings

Source: ft.com