Commissioner Síkela, in a written answer on 13 July 2026, defended the Global Gateway strategy against criticism over transparency and results, stating that the initiative has mobilised around EUR 306 billion in total investments between 2021 and 2024. The figure, which includes private capital leveraged alongside public and multilateral resources, was provided in response to a parliamentary question from Barbara Bonte (PfE). The Commissioner highlighted that the strategy has generated a pipeline of over 250 flagship projects across partner regions, strengthening digital and transport connectivity, energy and raw material supply chains, education, and health security, while creating opportunities for EU businesses through the Global Gateway Investment Hub, calls for expressions of interest, and business fora.
The answer comes after the European Court of Auditors had criticised shortcomings in reporting, transparency, and evaluation of the EFSD+ funding instruments and the External Action Guarantee. Síkela pointed to existing transparency measures: information on EFSD+ and the External Action Guarantee is included in the EU’s yearly draft general budget, and the Commission publishes an overview of all signed EFSD and EFSD+ guarantee agreements. Agendas and minutes of EFSD+ Strategic Board meetings are public, and a midterm evaluation of the NDICI Instrument has been carried out. The answer did not provide a specific breakdown of private investment alone, nor did it announce new transparency measures beyond those already in place. The Commission and its partners are further refining methodologies and communication on Global Gateway mobilised investment figures, Síkela noted.
The Commission signals continued commitment to the Global Gateway as a geopolitical and economic tool, emphasising aggregate results and existing reporting channels rather than new transparency rules. Institutional follow-up: The midterm evaluation of NDICI is already completed; further methodological refinements on investment figures are ongoing. The answer suggests no immediate legislative or procedural changes in response to the Court of Auditors’ criticism.