A group of 87 MEPs from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and Identity and Democracy (ID) groups has tabled amendments to a European Parliament draft report on development cooperation and migration, proposing to subordinate EU aid to the national interests and security priorities of Member States. The amendments, filed on 10 June 2026 to the report by Lukas Mandl (EPP, Austria), would redefine the purpose of EU development funding, making border protection and the reduction of irregular migration the primary benchmarks for success.
The amendments challenge the core premise of the draft report, which frames development cooperation as a tool for mutual benefit and addressing root causes of migration. The proposed changes would insert language stating that development cooperation is "not an end in itself" and that EU funding must "primarily serve the needs, interests and well-being of the citizens of the Member States." This shifts the primary beneficiary of EU external action from partner countries to the EU itself.
Redefining migration's impact
Amendment 8 directly contests the original text's balanced view of migration's economic impact. It replaces it with a starkly negative assessment, describing migration as generating "serious economic, social and demographic costs" and accelerating "brain drain" in countries of origin. This reframes migration as a problem for partner countries and a source of instability for the EU, rather than a potential contributor to development.
Conditionality and financial control
Amendments 7 and 9 introduce demands for "sound financial management" and "protection of the financial interest of European citizens." This implies stricter oversight and conditionality for development funds, potentially linking disbursement directly to a partner country's cooperation on border control and readmission. The amendments insist that EU funding must deliver "measurable results" in reducing irregular migration.
Stakeholder impacts
If adopted, the amendments would have significant consequences. For EU taxpayers, the shift would mean development funds are evaluated primarily on their contribution to domestic security rather than poverty reduction or sustainable development. For partner countries in Africa and the Middle East, aid would become more conditional and transactional, potentially reducing their policy space and linking development assistance to cooperation on migration control. For EU border agencies such as Frontex, the amendments would reinforce their role as key beneficiaries of external action funding. For EU development NGOs and civil society organisations, the reframing could reduce funding for long-term development projects in favour of short-term security interventions.
Institutional follow-up
The amendments will be considered by the European Parliament's Committee on Development (DEVE) before a plenary vote on the final report. The Council of the EU is expected to adopt its own conclusions on the same topic later in 2026, and the Commission will take parliamentary positions into account when designing future external action instruments. The amendments represent a direct attempt by the ECR and ID groups to replace the report's cooperative, development-focused language with a sovereignist, security-centric approach, setting up a likely clash with the centre-right EPP, Socialists & Democrats, and Renew Europe groups, which generally support the original report's emphasis on addressing root causes through sustainable development.
← Atlas › News › Development & Humanitarian Aid