Belgian MEP Barbara Bonte (Patriots for Europe) has asked the European Commission to provide concrete figures on private investment mobilised under the Global Gateway initiative and to clarify what quantifiable benefits the EU has reaped from the programme since its 2021 launch. In a written parliamentary question submitted on 7 April 2026, Bonte also demanded to know what measures the Commission has taken to improve reporting, transparency and evaluation of the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+) and the External Action Guarantee, following criticism from the European Court of Auditors.
Bonte, a member of the right-wing PfE group, frames the Global Gateway as a geopolitical tool meant to boost EU strategic autonomy through investments in energy corridors, digital connectivity and critical raw materials supply chains. Her questions target the gap between the Commission's ambitious narrative and the actual outcomes, particularly regarding private capital mobilisation — a key metric for the initiative's success.
aggregate figures for private investment mobilised via EU instruments since 2021; a list of observable, quantifiable benefits for the EU; and specific steps taken to address the European Court of Auditors' criticisms on transparency and evaluation. The reference to the Court of Auditors signals that Bonte is leveraging independent oversight findings to press for accountability.
Policy orientation and ambition Bonte's line of questioning suggests a sceptical stance toward the Commission's ability to deliver on its geopolitical promises. By requesting hard numbers, she implicitly challenges the narrative of success and calls for evidence-based assessment. The focus on transparency and evaluation indicates a desire for tighter oversight and possibly for reorienting the instrument toward more measurable outcomes.
Expected follow-up The Commission is required to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will reveal whether it can provide the requested data and how it intends to address the transparency gaps flagged by the auditors. A vague or evasive response could fuel further scrutiny from the European Parliament, while concrete figures might bolster the Commission's case for the Global Gateway's effectiveness.
← Atlas › News › Foreign affairs