Gulf States Offer Development Assistance in Central Asia as Western Donors Step Back

Recently, bilateral and multilateral relations have intensified between the five Central Asian republics and the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In addition to a surge in diplomatic visits and meetings at the state level, there are also signs of increasing GCC investment plans in Central Asia. This is accompanied by growing people-to-people and business  contacts; operators report a rise in travel between the two regions, while experts highlight the GCC as a potential labour migration destination for Central Asian workers. 

Against the backdrop of a seemingly encouraging overall picture, it is also important to consider development assistance. In Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan are upper middle-income countries, with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being lower middle-income countries. The latter three Central Asian republics receive development assistance to a larger extent, while Kazakhstan has started developing its own development agency. Nonetheless, all five countries remain assistance recipients. 

Traditional development assistance providers are based in the Global North, particularly among Western states. As such, many of the world’s leading development actors, such as the United Kingdom and France, are also former colonial powers. This often raises debates on how to approach aid and ensure historical injustices are addressed. So-called ‘new development assistance’ includes recently emerged major economic powers, who have received development aid themselves in the past, including China, India, and Brazil, among others. 

The GCC states thus represent an emerging wave of development assistance providers, having only recently begun to establish their profiles as global development donors. Central Asia, on the other hand, offers opportunities to engage in development aid in a politically safe and transparent manner. Having long been a recipient of development assistance, Central Asia still requires external support but has also accumulated sufficient knowledge and experience to engage with donors efficiently and transparently. 

The United Nations recommends developed nations to allocate 0.7 percent of their gross national income (GNI) to development assistance. The leading development assistance providers in the GCC—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates—collectively contributed $9.2 billion in development aid in 2022 alone, concretising the region’s role in global development. Moreover, these states have established formal aid agencies and report significant outbound assistance

At the regional level, the GCC states have contributed to multilateral organisations such as the Islamic Development Bank, where they are major stakeholders. These efforts are often announced at GCC summits or ministerial meetings, with funding decisions aligning their collective strategic priorities. According to a 2023 report by the Center for International Policy Research, in 2021, the UAE provided $47.2 million in development aid to Central Asia, while Qatar allocated $5.2 million. Saudi Arabia contributed $43.6 million, and Kuwait distributed $33.3 million in further development assistance to the region. 

Inter-regional multilateral relations are becoming increasingly substantial and regular. The inaugural GCC-Central Asia Summit took place in the Saudi city of Jeddah on July 19, 2023. The next summit is scheduled to be held in May 2025 in the Uzbek city of Samarkand. In between these two milestone meetings, there have been a series of ministerial meetings, where cooperation in trade, economic, investment, transport and communications, cultural, humanitarian, environmental, and tourism sectors were discussed.

However, there remains a gap in the regional landscape in climate finance in Central Asia that must be addressed. The Trump administration’s recent suspension of all foreign aid sent shockwaves across the global development sector, sparking confusion and panic. While the full impact of this decision is yet to be realised and analysed, it is clear that at least some areas of economic development and welfare worldwide—including Central Asia—will require additional support. 

In addition, the GCC states, alongside other development donors, have a unique opportunity to carry out a conceptual overhaul of the global development aid approach. Conventional development assistance has faced significant criticism, ranging from neocolonial allegations to concerns about inefficiency. The GCC has both the resources and the strategic positioning to create something new, innovative, and more effective. Entering Central Asia as a relatively neutral actor, the GCC is unburdened by a complicated shared past, unlike Russia, or politically motivated aid, as seen with the EU or the US. This neutrality could help facilitate a mutually beneficial and more equitable partnership between the two regions. 

Engaging in development assistance in Central Asia provides the GCC with an opportunity to boost its soft power in the region. There are numerous avenues for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to choose from, including, but not limited to, public healthcare, education, tourism, and poverty alleviation. 

However, two key challenges may impede smooth development cooperation between the GCC and Central Asia. First, the GCC lacks a designated agency focused on multilateral development cooperation and the pooling available funds to support developing countries. In contrast to certain nations and other international entities that have separate organisations—such as USAID or EU AID—there is no specific GCC development assistance agency with a distinct name and brand. Branding is crucial in international development, particularly for visibility and public support on the ground. Development assistance serves various objectives, one of which is to build a positive image of the donor, thereby strengthening its soft power on both global and local levels. 

The closest equivalent to a dedicated development agency within the GCC is the coordinated effort under the GCC Secretariat General, often linked to initiatives like the Gulf Programme for Development (AGFUND). However, the execution of these efforts is largely delegated to national entities like the Saudi Fund for Development or Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. National institutions within the GCC's member states occasionally collaborate in distributing development assistance and work with regional mechanisms or funds set up under the GCC's guidance.

Second, there is a clear lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the local and regional context in Central Asia, as well as the specific needs on the ground. It is no secret that, until recently, the GCC-CA interaction has been fairly limited; both regions have prioritised closer partnerships elsewhere in the world. However, the high-level GCC-C5 Summit in 2023 and the upcoming Summit in Samarkand this year signal a growing commitment from both sides to deepen ties. 

Policymakers in the GCC might consider streamlining regional development assistance, channelling it through intra-regional cooperation paths. This approach will help donor coordination, on one hand, and increase the visibility and impact of development assistance on the other. Meanwhile, policymakers in Central Asia could prepare and pitch ready-made proposals on how external national donors might contribute to the region’s economic development and welfare. Clear and transparent requests would make it easier for willing donors to justify their contributions domestically and internationally, creating the space for growth within this delicate dynamic.

While there is limited recent history of deep and meaningful interaction between the GCC nations and the Central Asian republics, the future of inter-regional cooperation appears cautiously bright. As the conventional development partners, such as the US and the EU, either withdraw completely from the international development sector or turn their focus to regions like Ukraine, the GCC countries are emerging as the new key actors in development assistance. 

At this stage, Central Asia has accumulated notable experience and expertise in engaging with development cooperation. Countries like Kazakhstan are on the verge of a transition from being recipients of development assistance to becoming providers themselves. But the majority of the region still requires external support, especially in the areas of economic development and transition to renewable energy. In light of this, the GCC could become a much more powerful player in this field.

Photo: Presidential Administration of Uzbekistan

Here's How the European Commission Will Allocate EUR 18 Million in Iran

For Iran, EUR 18 million represents just a drop in the bucket in terms of the foreign direct investment that the country needs for its economic development. But in terms of development funding, this amount, an initial tranche of a larger EUR 50 million bilateral allocation introduced by the European Commission and the European External Action Service this month, represents a highly significant, “first-of-its-kind,” intervention to support Europe-Iran trade and investment.

Iran is an unusual recipient for European development aid—by the usual metrics, the country is too rich. But after some internal political wrangling, the European Commission decided to proceed with a “special measure” in order to support the policy priorities of the European Union, namely the preservation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

However, the funding is not primarily intended as an attempt to mitigate the effect of returning U.S. secondary sanctions. Rather, as made clear in the “action document” which details how the development funding will be distributed, the European Commission has allocated the funding “in line with the European Consensus on Development” to provide “targeted support in the areas of Prosperity, Planet and People.”

In the area of “Prosperity,” the European Commission will seek “increased and diversified trade in goods and services” by supporting better trade policy, more effective investment promotion activities, and greater support for entrepreneurship and innovation. In the area of “Planet,” the European Commission will seek “the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation” by supporting programs that improve waste management and reduce water and air pollution through technologies that improve efficiency and greater awareness among policymakers and the general public. Finally, in the area of “People,” the Commission seeks to support “comprehensive and evidence-based drug use prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration” with a special focus on the use of opiates such as heroin and its role in spreading HIV/AIDS. The “Prosperity” and “Planet” areas have been allocated EUR 8 million in funding, while “People” has been allocated EUR 2 million.

The implementation of the funding differs in each area and will use both direct and indirect management, with the Commission ensuring that “that the EU appropriate rules and procedures for providing financing to third parties are respected” in all cases.

Funding in the area of “Prosperity” will be allocated through the International Trade Center (ITC), a United Nations agency. The ITC will assist Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization, a agency of the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade to develop a “national export strategy” with a particular focus on boosting the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as the internal managerial and technological capacity of TPO. ITC and TPO will also collaborate to develop a “Youth Trade Accelerator Program” which will youth-led enterprises. Initial meetings have already been held between ITC officials and Iran’s TPO and the cooperation envisioned and funded by the Commission builds on an MOU signed between ITC and TPO in 2016.

In the area of “Planet,” the European Commission will directly administer the funding on the bases of grants and will reply upon “pillar-assessed” organizations from its member states, a designation that applies to those organizations which have been pre-approved to implement resources from the European Union’s general budget. Efforts in this area will build on the EU-Iran framework for technical cooperation on the environment signed by Iran’s vice president for environment Masoumeh Ebtekar and EU environment commissioner Karmenu Vella in Brussels in September 2016. A consortium of member-state organizations is expected partner with Iranian stakeholders  to drive the implementation of pilot projects that “contribute to enhancing Iran’s self-reliance in the areas of addressing water pollution and integrated water resources management, air pollution, waste management and soil degradation.”

Finally, in the area of “People,” funding will be directly managed and dispersed via grants. The Commission will issue a single call in the “first trimester of 2019” for proposals “to finance projects aiming at comprehensive and evidence-based drug use prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration, with special emphasis on high-risk groups.” Interestingly, these grants will not be made directly to Iranian institutions. Instead, eligibility criteria mandate that grants flow to “agency, non-governmental organization, public sector operator, local authority, international research organization, university or university related organization” from an EU member state or a small group of international organizations. While the public health benefits of these grants will no doubt be substantial, these restrictions raise the question of how much of the financial impact of the EUR 2 million in grant funding allocated for the area of “People” will be felt in Iran.

Overall, the Commission’s efforts are encouraging for their scope and the clear willingness to deepen bilateral ties between the European Union and Iran at a fraught political moment. But beyond good intentions, implementation will be key. To this end, the Commission outlines a series of “assumptions” which underpin the feasibility of the planned cooperation with Iran.

The envisaged cooperation requires that “Iran ensures the necessary human, financial and material resources to facilitate the implementation of projects as far as cooperation with national authorities is required” and—in a crucial consideration given still-unexplained arrests of Iranian environmentalists—that “technical exchanges and cooperation between public sector and civil society actors… remain non-sensitive and feasible.”

Photo Credit: European Commission