What the EU elections mean for development

BRUSSELS — The European election results announced this week may have seen right-wing euroskeptics strengthen their position in Parliament, but European Union development insiders are quietly relieved as traditionally pro-development parties also won more seats. “I didn’t wake up saying, ‘Oh my god we’re in the shit,’” said Valentina Barbagallo, a consultant and former policy and advocacy manager at the ONE Campaign in Brussels. “Some of these results were expected.” Parties in the European Parliament are grouped according to their political affiliations. The final composition of the groups will be confirmed in July, but the grouping that hosts far-right and populist parties is expected to send a combined 73 deputies to the 751-seat assembly, almost double its current representation. At the same time, the liberal ALDE group and the Greens also won big, adding an expected 43 and 17 seats respectively. Those successes came at the expense of the traditional center-right and center-left groups, who have lost their combined majority for the 2019-2024 term, despite remaining the two largest groupings. The change comes midway through interinstitutional talks to agree the EU’s next long-term budget, covering the period 2021-2027. The previous Parliament had already agreed its position on the budget proposal in March, arguing for more money for development and external affairs. There is no guarantee that the new Parliament will keep to those terms as talks continue later this year. However, if its negotiators adopt a different position, they must ensure majority support in Parliament to approve the final outcome — no easy task given the increased fragmentation. The mixed picture also complicates the process of choosing the next president of the European Commission, who sets the EU legislative agenda and appoints a commissioner from each member state to cover portfolios including development. Civil society organizations in Brussels welcomed the focus of center-left candidate Frans Timmermans on the Sustainable Development Goals — an area he worked on in the previous commission. Other names mentioned as possible options for the top job have more development experience, including World Bank CEO and former EU humanitarian commissioner, Kristalina Georgieva, and former Finnish prime minister and current European Investment Bank vice-president, Alexander Stubb. Manfred Weber, the lead candidate from the center-right group that won the most seats, is pressing his claim to the presidency, though French President Emmanuel Macron and other leaders have hinted that the German lacks the necessary executive experience. A senior EU official, who requested anonymity to discuss the ongoing political appointment process, told Devex that Weber’s views on development had clearly been informed by discussions with German development minister Gerd Müller. “The terminology that Weber used suddenly in the campaign is really identical to the terminology that Müller was using before,” the official said, pointing to German development policies and proposals such as “the Marshall Plan for Africa, the [European] commissioner for Africa, and some other stuff. And as both are from the same party, clearly there have been discussions and influencing on Weber from Müller. On that, I’m absolutely sure.” Currently, commissioners include postings dedicated to humanitarian aid and international development. Müller has championed the idea of adding a European commissioner for Africa, which also featured in a report on French aid delivered to Macron last summer, lending weight to the idea that a Franco-German alliance could make it a reality under the incoming commission. However, should the role be created, the EU official said the risk is that the development commissioner’s portfolio, left with responsibility only for Asia and Latin America, becomes “extremely thin.” Parliament must approve national leaders’ choice for the commission president by a majority vote, after which the nominee assembles their cabinet of commissioners who must also pass confirmation hearings in Parliament. The commission’s development portfolio has gone to relatively minor EU countries in recent years, including Croatia and Latvia, leading many insiders to lament the commissioner’s lack of clout on the global stage. But the senior EU official who spoke to Devex said the growing emphasis on development’s role in stemming migration, security, and economic diplomacy, could see larger states grow an appetite to steer what was previously seen as a “niche” area. “In areas like Asia, Africa you now have the economic competition with China, the Arabs,” the official said. “You do that not just through trade. Via development cooperation, you can do quite a lot on the ground.” Barbagallo was among those urging Liberals and Greens to push to chair the development committee in the new Parliament, while the European Centre for Development Policy Management think tank suggested the groups may seek to have one of their own as development commissioner or high representative for foreign policy. The growing geopolitical use of EU aid, however, has some worried that development could pique the interest of the newly arrived far-right members of the European Parliament. Until now, far-right groups have engaged little with the work of the Parliament’s development committee, DEVE, for instance. On paper, DEVE is responsible for dialogue with lower-income countries, and oversight of effective aid funding. In practice, however, deputies regularly complain they are kept out of the loop by the commission and member states. MEPs say Parliament’s role in EU development policy is currently limited by a lack of oversight over the €30.5 billion ($34 billion) European Development Fund, which sits outside the official EU budget. They are pushing for more say in programming under the EU’s next long-term budget, as part of which the commission has proposed budgetizing EDF.