By Cyprien Fabre and Sarah Spencer Bernard, OECD
As the new Commission takes office this December, the European Union (EU) is embarking on a drive to rethink its approach to development co-operation. What will this mean for countries exposed to high fragility?
The success of the Global Gateway as the main pillar of the EU’s international co-operation in the years to come hinges on its ability to address fragility. It may be tempting to remove development assistance from countries that are “not compatible” with the Global Gateway approach. But disengaging would have a significant political and likely economic cost for the EU and its Member States.
Close to 50% of Global Gateway countries are amongst the most fragile contexts in the world. The success or failure of investments through the Global Gateway will depend on how the funding is integrated into the political, security, economic, environmental, societal and human context of these fragile areas. Fragility cuts across all these dimensions and contrary to widespread perceptions, it is not confined to low-income or conflict-prone contexts.
Fragility: A universal challenge that impacts EU interests
Fragility disrupts global trade, increases the risk of market fragmentation, and puts food and energy security at risk. Fragmentation deepens cleavages between economic blocs, hinders growth, access to resources and co-operation on global challenges like pandemics and climate change. History has shown that economic development is not a zero-sum game – we rise or fall together.
Fragile contexts face mounting debt, with at least 25 in debt distress or at high risk of it. Median debt service has more than doubled as a share of GNI since 2012, stifling governments’ ability to address needs. Without investing in the basic building blocks of development, the voters, workers and consumers of the future may be lost.
Fragility is a primary driver of migration and displacement. In 2023, 79% of forcibly displaced people worldwide originated from fragile contexts. At the EU level, over 70% of asylum seekers and 56% of irregular migrants came from these regions.
Fragility increases insecurity. Legitimate state institutions and reliable control over state violence are often weak in the most fragile contexts. For example, developing countries facing extreme fragility control on average 77% of their territory against 95% for those least fragile.
Fragility challenges Europe’s geopolitical influence. Most fragile contexts are governed by autocratic regimes that are increasingly open to partnering with China, Russia and other competitors on the global stage, weakening Europe’s global influence.
Withdrawing from the most fragile contexts is a dangerous choice.
The EU and its Member States are directly impacted by their partners’ fragility. Yet the share of EU official development assistance (ODA) to the most fragile contexts started to decrease in 2020, and recent announcements at EU level and in EU Member States point to a further decline of support in the most difficult contexts. This has political consequences.
Withdrawing leaves space for competitors to exploit. Partners in need of external finance will likely turn to other sources of development and financing support, which will come hand in hand with new political alignments. Withdrawal makes re-engagement particularly costly and reduces opportunities to support democratic institutions and development trajectories.
Withdrawing makes access to critical resources more costly. Most fragile contexts are seeking to expand their trading footprint and increase inward investment, especially when they provide critical materials that are in high demand. This makes it shortsighted to curtail relations and limit dialogue on development outcomes.
EU global influence is built on strategic choice.
To make Global Gateway a success, and to remain a driving political and economic force globally, the EU should not shy away from thinking about fragility strategically through a nuanced and proactive approach. This includes:
- Using fragility as an analytical lens. Fragility provides a framework to understand interconnected challenges across systems and sectors. Applying this framework across international partnerships enables policymakers to design an effective mix of interventions, instruments and approaches – diplomatic, developmental, humanitarian or security-related.
- Pursuing integrated international co-operation. Co-operation with states most exposed to fragility should balance immediate needs with long-term goals. This approach acknowledges trade-offs and incentives, ensuring that support aligns with democratic principles and geostrategic priorities.
- Maintaining engagement during estrangement. Sustaining a presence, even in politically constrained environments, is vital. Minimal engagement beyond humanitarian aid can preserve relationships and provide critical insights into evolving conditions, allowing for quicker and more effective re-engagement when opportunities arise.