BRUSSELS — The European Commission wants to extract more value from the foreign aid it offers poor countries under a controversial plan being sketched out in Brussels.

The EU executive intends to add conditions to funds transferred to developing countries, such as the need to stem migrant flows, according to an internal document seen by POLITICO.

The big idea is to deploy funding to regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East not just to tackle poverty, but also to deliver on domestic priorities of EU countries.

“These [partnership] packages will reinforce the link between external action and internal priorities, such as energy security, the supply of critical raw materials,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin wrote in an internal note seen by POLITICO laying out the EU’s next multi-year budget.

The potential shift would see the EU’s development agenda emulate that of the U.S. and the U.K., both of whom use foreign aid as leverage to deliver on domestic voters’ priorities. This would be a big change from the EU’s current aid model, which largely comes without strings attached.

However, before additional conditions can be added to payments, the EU must convince key lawmakers, NGOs and member countries, who must unanimously approve the new rules, that this is a better system.

That might not be easy. Critics say that this system could stymie the EU’s efforts to reduce poverty across the world.

“This is a strategy that could undermine the quality of EU development aid,” said María José Romero from Eurodad, an NGO focused on debt management in poor countries.

“There is not a single member state who supports this approach,” said an EU diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive topics.

The EU’s development ministers are expected to weigh in on the future of foreign aid during a meeting on May 26.

This comes as part of talks over the next multi-year budget — known in Brussels as the multiannual financial framework — ahead of the Commission’s proposal on July 16.

Cash-for-reforms

Under the plan that’s being considered, the Commission would engineer economic partnerships with each beneficiary foreign country, linking aid to broader trade and economic relations.

But critics say the approach smacks of paternalism — and will do little to improve Europe’s reputation in poorer countries, which is already stained by the legacy of colonialism.

“What is at stake in the next budget is the EU’s credibility as a reliable partner,” said Romero from Eurodad.

“It’s [a way] to please voters at home rather than actually doing something that works where development aid should,” Danish MEP Rasmus Nordqvist told POLITICO.

Brussels officials, however, balk at the accusation that the strategy echoes the extortive practices often associated with Chinese and American approaches to foreign aid.

The topic is particularly sensitive following President Donald Trump’s use of foreign aid as a lever to seize strategic assets abroad. A notable example involves the U.S. gaining access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources as payback for its military support.

China, meanwhile, has been accused of using foreign aid to foster alignment with its agenda at international bodies like the United Nations. This, however, is not something Europe is seeking to do.

“We are creating partnership agreements that are mutually beneficial,” said an EU official.

The Commission signaled that rules for essential humanitarian aid — which caters for basic needs like food and clean water — won’t change in the new budget.

Merging the funds

The new model would bring about major administrative changes. The strategy would, for example, aim to lump several different programs — from migration, foreign investment, to conflict prevention — into a single Global Europe Fund subdivided by geographic categories.

Bordering countries in the process of joining the EU — such as the Western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova — would, meanwhile, face separate and potentially tougher conditions than other developing countries.

“You can’t apply the same conditions to candidate countries and North African countries,” said the EU diplomat.

Some national capitals, however, see these changes as a Commission power grab since it would allow the executive body to shuffle funding between different regions without consulting national capitals.

“Flexibilities within and between geographies will be introduced,” the document reads.