(cont. from § 4) International aid (cont. UU8)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We will now consider a motion report based on the government's reform agenda. Since it was published in December, several strategies have been introduced that are based on it.

I have, on very short notice due to illness, been asked to replace the Christian Democrats' foreign policy spokesperson Gudrun Brunegård in this debate. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

As a Christian Democrat, I am pleased that many of the core elements can be recognized from the aid policy program that we developed in the spring of 2022. We noted there that external evaluations showed that Swedish aid was very good, but that over the years it has been spread thin across more and more prioritized goals and more and more program countries. This made the aid difficult to evaluate, and it became difficult to follow the effect of the billions that were put into the system.

Overall, our priorities were followed in the agreement that the four parties in the majority concluded on thematic priorities with a focus on, among other things, poverty reduction and health interventions for the most vulnerable, democracy assistance to human rights defenders and democracy activists, expanded and streamlined climate aid, as well as the rights and opportunities of women and girls. It is also established there that the proportion of aid channeled through civil society is increased.

The multilateral cooperation shall be focused on the organizations that work with the thematic priorities as well as with humanitarian refugee aid and children's rights. A special initiative is made for efforts to create conditions for free elections.

Work is currently underway to translate this concise agreement into various governing documents. One strategy after another is being published: the civil society strategy, the strategy for democracy and human rights, and several country strategies.

All work of change causes anxiety for those it affects, both the Swedish aid organizations and their sister organizations in the recipient country. On 29 February, the government tasked Sida with investigating the consequences of opening the current order with 17 strategic partner organizations and allowing all organizations to apply for project responsibility directly with Sida. Unfortunately, the assignment was misinterpreted by many organizations and, unfortunately, also by Sida.

Let me be blunt. The partial report that Sida recently submitted to the government is not what was ordered. It is foreign to us Kristdemokrater and other government parties that Sida itself should take over the contacts with the organizations in the aid country. On the contrary, we have in several steering documents emphasized the importance of stimulating a vibrant civil society. This is not achieved by cutting the contact between organizations in Sweden and their sister organizations in the aid country.

The ongoing assignment will be analyzed and, if necessary, adjusted by the government before any decisions are made regarding a changed direction in the system with SPOs. Naturally, the new model will be developed with the ambition to avoid harmful uncertainty and enable continuity and long-term perspective in the important work that civil society performs.

Many organizations have collaborated with their partner organizations in the aid country for more than 100 years and built long-standing and stable relations, in addition to all the activities they have conducted to lift the population out of poverty, ignorance, diseases, and oppression. They are a veritable lifeline between Sweden and the aid country.

The Christian Democrats are themselves a people's movement party. We see a vibrant civil society as an indispensable prerequisite for a functioning society as a whole. Through our efforts, the government's various documents on aid have been reinforced with passages regarding the importance of a well-functioning civil society, not least in countries where democracy is under pressure.

The Swedish organizations, with their long-term collaborations with partner organizations in developing countries, have in evaluations shown to be responsible for successful and cost-effective aid projects. We have received support in the government for the proportion of aid mediated by civil society organizations to increase. The churches constitute a very important part therein, not least through their long-term relations to sister churches.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is extremely secularized. Many lack an understanding of the role that religion plays in most other countries in the world, perhaps especially in countries that are in need of aid. SMR has made important contributions to increase this understanding by educating officials at Sida and UD in religious understanding. Such trainings need to become more frequent, not less. This was something we Kristdemokrater raised in our aid policy program 2022. Therefore, we are pleased that we have included passages in various documents that confirm the role of religion.

Many successful aid efforts are carried out through churches and other religious groups. When the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Dr. Mukwege, who is also a pastor, teaches in the large Pentecostal churches in eastern Congo about the importance of protecting their women and children, it receives a much greater response from the population than if a UN official had said the same thing.

The importance of religion for change is also confirmed by Dr. Iyad Abu Moghli, founder and leader of the Faith for Earth Initiative within the UN's environmental program, Unep, whom some Christian Democrats have had the honor of meeting during the past few days. He brings together high-level leaders from different major religions to, from a common ethical platform, influence people of different religions worldwide in a work of change for strategic planning and a sustainable society, regarding both coexistence and care for the environment. This is something that we should learn from in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Children are the group that is most vulnerable to both poverty, famine, war and conflicts and natural disasters. We need to work actively to alleviate the distress. The right to schooling for children, even when they are in flight, is included in the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

School becomes a respite from the misery that often exists in refugee camps, a normality in the midst of the abnormal, and the child is given an opportunity to, through knowledge, be able to get away from there and create a life in safety and development. Therefore, it is alarming that nine out of ten children in developing countries at the age of ten cannot read and understand a simple text. There is a need for strategic work via the UN but also through other organizations that have specialized in education issues, such as Global Partnership for Education.

The Christian Democrats' aid policy is driven by the party's ideological cornerstones: solidarity and brotherhood. For us, it is important to safeguard strong popular support for generous and long-term aid to poor countries also in the future. We are pleased that we have gained support for this in the government and are positive towards ideas that can lead to improved quality and transparency in the allocation of aid. We will push to ensure that the aid policy that has been decided is also implemented.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Berntsson, for your intervention in the debate!

I do not doubt that the aid policy would look different if it were a Christian Democratic single-party government with its own majority compared to now, when you have joined the same boat as the other Tidö parties. You stand up for the one percent issue and have a strong anchoring in popular movements and congregations, not least the free church movement.

I do not doubt that you have a genuine commitment and understanding of the importance of the power one has or the impact one can achieve through people's movement-to-people's movement assistance, whether it, as in your example, is congregations meeting sister congregations out in the world or whether it, as in our case, is workers' movement representatives and trade unionists meeting other like-minded people in the same movement in other countries. There is an immense power in this.

But, Magnus Berntsson, you unfortunately seem to have been tricked into the stands. It is not sufficient to say that Sida has misunderstood an instruction. I am sorry - good try, but it does not hold as an explanation for why one is now preparing to cut the grassroots movement funding in the way it is being done.

There can be no doubt about how this has landed with civil society in Sweden. I understand that you do not want to do as the opposition wants, but the government should not be so tone-deaf as to completely ignore what virtually the entire Swedish civil society is saying: Use us as a part of Team Sweden to ensure that we have an effective and results-oriented aid that makes a difference in people's lives!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Olle Thorell for the question. Not least, I want to thank him for his great faith in a Christian Democratic single-party government, something that I also believe would be beneficial for Sweden.

We are currently four parties cooperating. In connection with the Tidö Agreement, an agreement was also written in something called Bana för bistånd. A supporting part of that is that the proportion of aid that goes through civil society actors shall increase, and it is also a very important part of the reform agenda for aid that was established by the government in December. Now that work is to proceed and be implemented.

I regret the concern that has been created. I do not doubt that Sida, when they warned that the current agreements would be terminated, did so in a pious hope that it would facilitate the work of entering into the new ones. But since this was announced before the new ones have been presented, it has unfortunately created a great deal of concern.

Gudrun Brunegård, who is the spokesperson for aid policy, has spoken with many people from civil society, and I too have spoken with very many who feel this concern. When it comes to the agreement between the Tidö parties and the actual decisions that have been made by the government, it is however very clear that the proportion of aid that goes through civil society actors shall increase.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I just want to say that I do not believe there will be a Christian Democratic single-party government during my lifetime, even if I were to become very, very old. But one can have hypotheses.

I do not distrust the Christian Democrats' good intentions, as I have said, but you have gotten into the boat, and now it is time to row together. That is how it is when one governs together.

It is said that the proportion going to civil society should increase, but what we have seen so far is that it becomes an unchanged or smaller proportion. The government's budget request for next year is 300 million kronor less for CSO grants. What is it they say in English - the proof is in the pudding.

Talk is cheap, and having fine, good ambitions is all well and good, but what I look forward to are changed decisions. It is okay if one wants to change the folk movement support, but you can do that by phasing out existing agreements and saying that everyone who has entered into five-year agreements with Swedish folk movement support organizations may complete them, and so it applies to new applications and new projects.

It is an order that is reasonable, while this has created chaos. And it has not only created unrest. Real consequences are already appearing. Organizations have terminated agreements with their partner organizations, and these have begun to wind down operations. If it is only Sida that has misunderstood, it is indeed deplorable that it should have such unreasonable consequences. It is not acceptable, and I assume that Magnus Berntsson agrees with this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I just want to start by wishing Olle Thorell a very long life so that he can experience a lot in the future!

Back to the question: I think, as I have said, that this has not been a successful process. It has created concern and resulted in hasty decisions being made, which I am concerned about. Long-term thinking in the work with civil society is obviously very important, and there is a risk that expertise will be lost if hasty decisions are made.

I expect that it will soon be clarified how we are to handle this situation. We agree that civil society actors should have a larger share of the aid. I do, however, think it is relevant to review the organization, the transparency, and the specific responsibility that the 17 organizations have. Today, for example, a journalist cannot request information on how certain decisions are made regarding the SROs, and that is actually a democratic concern.

There is reason to review this. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has been done in a way that has created unnecessary concern.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to join the chorus in saying that many of us see KD as the primary guarantor that something positive will come from the government regarding aid. That is, in fact, the case.

With this said, I do not think it is okay to stand here and blame everything on the agency. I say as I said at the meeting last week when Gudrun Brunegård was present: For those who read the assignment to Sida, it was completely crystal clear what would be the result in the first report, which has now arrived. This was not only something the opposition was completely in agreement on; it was all organizations in agreement. Already after a few days, signals came that this and that would happen, and that was also exactly what Sida then presented in its report.

The instruction arrived almost two months ago. If it was now a misunderstanding, it would have been quite simple for the government to correct the decision just by a simple sentence stating that the agreements shall be phased out in accordance with the contract period. Had that little sentence been included, I believe a fairly large part of the concern would have been avoided. But now that is not the case, and I refuse to think that it is okay to stand here and blame the authority. One must gracefully take responsibility when one sits in the government and has written it in this way.

Now I wonder: Are you really so united in the government on how this should proceed? When it comes to transparency, it is very clear, but I thought the Moderate member earlier today pointed out that it is primarily the local civil society that one should focus on. The Swedish civil society was perhaps not quite as important. What is the situation really?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Anna Lasses for the kind words regarding the Christian Democrats' aid policy. I am not surprised, as we have historically cooperated on these issues. I believe that there can be opportunities for much consensus in the aid policy, regardless of whether we cooperate or not.

However, I do not quite agree with the description. Sida makes independent decisions according to the structure we have. The agencies make their own decisions. I think the instruction should be seen as part of the reform agenda's whole, and that what was said about civil society having a larger part was very clear.

We must also remember the following: This is a very important part of the aid, but it is not the case that all civil society aid resources go to this part. This is actually a rather small part of the aid from civil society that is managed. If I remember correctly, 43 percent of the total sum from Sida goes via civil society actors; that is a much larger part than just this part. When it comes to this part, we are talking about just over 1.5 billion, so it is a considerably smaller part. It is, however, as said, immensely important.

I also agree with Anna Lasses that it is very important to see the whole, that is, to see the Swedish aid organizations, civil society, and the civil society actors that exist locally on the ground, if I may put it that way, in the aid countries. It is extremely important to see the links between them. This is what we Kristdemokrater work on all the time, and I think we have included clear provisions in the reform agenda.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I know that the Christian Democrats are struggling, and I hope it will go well. I am, however, still a bit unsure whether everyone in the government is truly completely in agreement. I did not get an answer to that, and I don't think I will get an answer to it either. I am very questioning about this.

This is absolutely a small part, but one puts together a puzzle of everything that happens. This is part of what we who are a bit more critical see as a reduction when it comes to those who are engaged in aid issues in different ways, regardless of whether it is in Sweden or in the local community. A shift has indeed occurred.

The government has had two months to correct the decision, but no such correction has occurred. Time is running out - 1,700 contracts have begun to be terminated. You must hurry if it is to be possible to stop this carousel.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Lasses for the contribution. I did not perceive many new questions, but I would like to make a few remarks.

One of the considerations is that I am not so convinced that a potential alternative on the opposition side is so in agreement on these issues. In any case, we have sat down and arrived at something that we have decided and presented in the reform agenda for the aid.

We are satisfied with the direction, even though we have been clear that we as Christian Democrats would have wanted to see another level of aid in total. However, there is much left to do. It is important that the aid has an effect, and we believe that effect is best achieved through close cooperation with civil society actors, both in Sweden and in other countries.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Commitment - listen to that word for a moment, for it can be one of the most beautiful words we have. Commitment implies community, care, and caring. Commitment implies the power to change, and that is precisely what aid is about - to change the life situation of vulnerable people so that as many as possible feel security and participation in our world.

I must admit that it was difficult to figure out what I should say in the debate today. It was not because I do not know what I think about the government basis' aid policy, but rather because it is painful to follow the dismantling that is occurring of the institutions that uphold the democratic values in Sweden, of which aid is one. So much within the reform of aid risks going very wrong due to the government's great haste.

Every time I read the government's reform agenda, I am struck by how differently words and sentences can be used and interpreted. Three years ago, we in the Center Party produced our own, smaller version of the reform agenda for development aid. In that, we highlighted the importance of enterprise and entrepreneurship and of using this as a lever so that societies can develop. We highlighted sustainable jobs, climate transition, and democratic principles. We spoke about the importance of focus in order to be able to achieve as much as possible with the funds that Sweden contributes. Does that sound familiar?

When I first laid both of these documents side by side, the similarities were striking, yet not at all. It took me several readings to understand why. The government's reform agenda is like our agenda but precisely the opposite. It is about the starting point. Where the Centerpartiet starts from the individual who needs support, the government starts from Sweden as a nation. Where the Centerpartiet sees that engagement must increase both in Sweden and locally among the recipients, the government transforms the goals of transparency and efficiency into a form of statism and large-scale operations. Where we start from the goals in Agenda 2030, the government mentions, most obligingly, Agenda 2030 five times in subordinate clauses tied to Swedish goals.

What is truly sad is what has come afterwards, which actually started with a reduction in communication support for civil society. That money should be used in the best way is a self-evident matter, but to not value people's engagement is short-sighted and stingy. It is precisely for this that communication is intended.

Or was this what was intended? Was this a step towards the nationalization of aid that is now happening, if it is happening? We will see what happens ahead.

What does what we call nationalization mean then? When the government talks about it, it sounds very rational. Intermediaries should be removed, money should, to the greatest extent possible, go directly from the state agency to the recipient, transparency shall increase, and it should be easy to follow the money. It sounds very good and extremely important, but what does it mean in practice?

Swedish civil society is part of a global network where trust and relationships are strong. It is actually one of the strongest things we have, which of course is due to the fact that civil society can specialize in a completely different way than an agency can. The LGBTQ+ movement in Sweden can identify, help, and act as spokespersons for LGBTQ+ people worldwide in a significantly more credible way than a Swedish civil servant can. Through the global networks, small local organizations in the most vulnerable areas in the world can make their voices heard, receive support, and make a real difference. Furthermore, organizations offer a security and impartiality that an agency can actually never achieve in the countries where people are subjected to persecution and torture by authoritarian regimes.

At the same time, we get an added value in Sweden, where Swedish civil society engages and involves Swedish citizens in what is happening around the world. It builds trust and confidence. How many Swedish citizens feel the same trust in an authority? How great is the engagement for what a Swedish authority does, as long as it does what it is supposed to do and nothing stupid? How involved are Swedish citizens in what the authorities do on a daily basis?

Civil society provides an added value that is not so easily visible in the tables of the economic calculations. But it makes a real difference in the world and in Sweden. That entrepreneurship and enterprise are highlighted and increased is very positive as long as the focus is on the recipient and the local conditions.

To achieve long-term sustainability and democracy for real, civil society needs to be on board. The Center Party has therefore, in its agenda, proposals to have a common platform for the business sector, civil society, and authorities here in Sweden, not just locally. Team Sweden could be this platform, but so far, civil society has not been invited. We ask ourselves why this important opportunity is being thrown away.

It is not possible to overlook the manner in which this reform has taken place and the total absence of respect that has been shown towards the organizations, both Swedish and local.

Now it is about the agreements. The agreements with the Swedish organizations are terminated with immediate effect, even if it were a misunderstanding. What happens then? Let us take an example. The organization We Effect works, among other things, with entrepreneurship, often within food production and forestry and often in activities that strengthen women's empowerment. All of these goals are included in the government's priority areas. But now their agreement is terminated, and it means that they, in their own turn, need to tear up the 150 local agreements they have around the world.

We Effect is not alone in this. Organization after organization bears witness to the same thing. Previously, the example with Rädda Barnen and the organization in Rwanda was mentioned, an organization that has been able to make a difference on the ground thanks to Rädda Barnen's support regarding administration and legal matters. But now this cooperation must be terminated. The question remains: How is such an organization ever going to manage to fulfill a Swedish authority's formal requirements to apply for funds?

Transparency and efficiency are good, but they must be weighed against participation and trust - values that are at least as important - otherwise, Swedish aid risks being diluted into large-scale mass projects where the human being becomes invisible and insignificant.

When it comes to these two projects, I know that the government actually considers them to be good and that they should remain. But due to the rapid, jerky, and sudden handling, they now risk being lost. A more sensible way would have been to phase out the projects, for example by letting the contracts expire or at least providing long notice.

Sweden cannot and should not do everything, but we can do quite a lot. Above all, we can choose to be where we are needed most, not just where we get the most bang for our buck. We can actively choose to be in the most vulnerable parts of the world and fight for democracy, human rights, equality, everyone's right to education, clean water, and clean energy.

But now the government seems to want to do the opposite and reduce development support to countries and places where it is difficult to be due to authoritarian forces and conflicts. Many other donor countries are doing the same, and together we leave the field open for authoritarian forces such as Russia, China and Iran, who are eager to be involved and play a role in the countries' development. We should do the opposite and show that we stand up for the values we speak so beautifully about, even if it may cost more in kronor and öre in the short term and is more about quality than quantity.

The reform of aid is part of the reforms, debates, and cuts that in different ways help to reduce people's engagement and participation, and in the case of aid, it has devastating consequences, not only in Sweden but above all for the people whom the aid actually concerns. Until now, one has been able to rely on Sweden and Swedish organizations. Sweden has given hope for a better future. Do not extinguish that hope!

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would begin the discussion on how much money should go to aid. It is known that the Liberals continue to stand behind the one percent goal, i.e., that 1 percent of the GNP should go to aid. It is something we continue to try to get through. It may be worth underlining, Madam Speaker, because in the debate it has sounded to some parties as if they stand behind the one percent goal. We also pushed for this in the January agreement with the previous government, but then we did not succeed either. I think that as a politician one should admit when one fails to get one's policy through, and we have not succeeded in the current government and, as mentioned, neither when the Social Democrats were in power.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to thank Miljöpartiet for standing up for the one percent goal together with the Liberals during the previous parliamentary term. I would also like to thank Kristdemokraterna for standing up for the same goal together with the Liberals during this parliamentary term. I believe that as a politician, one should be able to speak out when both opponents and allies pursue policies that one believes are good. Thank you, Miljöpartiet, for the previous parliamentary term, and thank you, Kristdemokraterna, for this one!

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the entire democratic world find themselves in what will likely be looked back upon as a second Cold War. This war is played out between, on one side, democratic countries such as Sweden, the rest of Europe, USA, Canada, South Korea and Japan, and on the other side, China, which plays the former Soviet Union's role during the first Cold War, Iran, Russia and North Korea - the axis powers of evil. It is about which values shall be governing in our world, whether we shall stand behind the liberal, democratic world order or whether we shall have a new world order where the agenda is set by the axis powers of evil. It is, among other things, from this perspective that it is so important to emphasize what the government is doing, also in the reform agenda, namely that civil society is an indispensable part of Swedish aid.

Today's debate has dealt a lot with precisely the role of civil society, and I will take the opportunity to counter a claim that has appeared several times that the government would like to nationalize civil society's aid. That is not true, Madam Speaker. There is no such ambition in the government or in any of the governing parties - or in the government's coalition partner, as far as I know. It is fake news and disinformation, and I think it is unworthy that this idea is being spread from the Riksdag's rostrum. On the contrary, the government's ambition is that civil society's role in aid should increase.

Civil society and civil society organizations must be able to apply for grants on equal terms through transparent grant processes. That should be quite uncontroversial. It does not mean that Sida or the state should take over project management or civil society's role. The state can neither nor should do that. It is obviously impossible for the state to take over the role that civil society plays because the state is a different type of actor than civil society.

As a liberal, it is almost laughable to hear parties on the left wing describe how important civil society is and how difficult it is for the state to perform certain tasks, because we liberals have tried to describe this in almost every area of society for hundreds of years and have constantly been met by the united left with that it is indeed the state that should do things. Now the left side is trying to make it sound like we want the state to grow and do more things and that we believe the state is so incredibly efficient and good. But no liberal believes that, and no one in the government either. If one has only read a little social studies in primary school in Sweden, I think one knows that it is not how liberals think. That is not how we think in this case either.

It is simply not true.

Madam Speaker! The aid agenda and the government's aid policy also contain a focus on how aid and trade can cooperate. I think that should also be quite uncontroversial.

Trade, free trade, arises when people are free to create something themselves, run businesses, be entrepreneurs and create value for one another. That is what trade and economy are about. Economy is when people do things and exchange goods and services with one another. Trade is when we do it between countries. It is that which has created all the prosperity we have in this country and in all other countries in the world as well. It is because of trade that I can stand here with a ballpoint pen and that Madam Speaker can have dinner on the table after the working day is over.

It is clear that it is trade that fundamentally will ensure that people are lifted out of poverty in those parts of the world that today are not as wealthy as we are here in Sweden. It is a pure self-evident truth; that is how the economy works and has worked in all times.

Madam Speaker! That trade can contribute to fulfilling and achieving the aid policy goals is an important insight. I think it is positive that, in light of the government's aid policy, we also see this and push for a policy that moves in that direction.

This is also part of the discussion that I initiated with – that there is a cold war ongoing between the countries that want democracy and the countries that are against democracy. The countries that are against democracy also have much more planned economies. They are not market economies. We who have democracy are market economies. Property rights and free trade go hand in hand with all other human rights. These things, therefore, have something to do with each other.

Madam Speaker! I state once again what I said earlier and want to emphasize it a little extra: What the government's parties have agreed is that civil society's share in the aid shall increase. Today it is somewhere around 40 percent, but that share shall therefore go up. That is what we agree on; regarding that, there is no line of conflict.

I welcome, Madam Speaker, all the times that the opposition in the Swedish Riksdag wants it not to be the state that should do more, but that it is civil society that should do more. I hope that we will see the same commitment for private actors, i.e., actors who are not the state, in many other policy areas.

Madam Speaker! With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I will not enter into a polemic with Joar Forssell regarding the cold war between liberal and illiberal forces or what is fake news and what is not.

I thought instead of dedicating the reply to another area that has not been discussed as much so far in the debate. It concerns development research. The Liberals are the party that has the Ministry of Education, and they have a history of standing up for research and science.

A very negative event in the field of aid was when the grant that the Swedish Research Council mediated for specifically development research was abolished. It is, therefore, such research as, for example, Hans Rosling dedicated his life to, and which is about finding out what is effective aid and how it can become better. What is it that brings development in the world?

This was abolished straight up and down. The defense was that there are other research funds to apply for and that 98 percent of the research grants remain somewhere else. One has to compete with other stakeholders, it was said. The research world was very upset, just as civil society is right now. Over 600 researchers wrote an article in Aftonbladet and complained about this.

Now an evaluation shows how this research has progressed. It turns out that 53 percent of the researchers have changed the direction of the research. More are focusing on Sweden and Swedish issues and on Europe and the north instead of poverty reduction, equality and agricultural development. Two-thirds state that the work has been discontinued or significantly changed negatively as a result of the cuts.

I wonder, Joar Forssell: Was this what was intended?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, it is about what Member Thorell describes here, that there is a parallel to how the process has been regarding civil society. I want to emphasize roughly the same thing as my Christian Democratic colleague emphasized here earlier. I too can admit that there may be reasons to criticize parts of the process, even though I think the political direction is correct.

Madam Speaker! It is a somewhat tricky matter to answer when the member asks if I consider that this was intended to be the result. As a Liberal, I do not have many opinions on what researchers research. It would be problematic if I pointed out a direction and said: I think you should research these subjects and these things and not those or those. There is no such purpose, Madam Speaker, with Liberal research policy. Fundamentally, there should be funds for good research, and researchers should simply apply for funds for high-quality research projects.

We see, of course, that society can have certain needs at times and that there can be reasons to research certain things more at a societal level. But fundamentally, I actually find it difficult to say from the parliamentary rostrum that I think the researchers should research in a certain direction. It is difficult to answer this.

A survey such as the one Member Thorell refers to describes how it has become. It cannot say anything - if we are to talk a bit about methodology - about how it would have become otherwise. We do not know that. We do not know what the difference is compared to what it would have become otherwise. We know what the difference is compared to what it was before, but not compared to what it would have become otherwise.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! No, parallel realities cannot be investigated. What would have happened if the Liberals had not joined the same boat as the Sweden Democrats but instead supported a government led by Magdalena Andersson? One might wish that one could investigate that, but it is not possible.

These are, however, the perceptions of the researchers who engage in development research for the future. They claim that they have changed their focus and that they are doing this instead. They describe what reality looks like now.

One should not govern research; that is how it is. But at the same time, the member says that certain research is particularly important and that it needs to be supported extra. In that case, it is obviously not development research that the Liberals consider to be particularly important.

There is an expert group for aid analysis, EBA. It is an important institution that is to evaluate the effects of aid. It is an independent agency with experts who evaluate and write reports on the aid on their own initiative. It is something that should be in line with the ambition to achieve better results and higher quality in the aid. There, the experts in the expert group have been replaced at a rapid pace. The government is free to do that, and it is clear that there should be turnover of people there as well. But now we see the result. There is nothing wrong with the competence of the individuals, they are many capable people. But there is no one in the expert group who has a background in development research.

If you add these things together, it appears that the government does not consider development research to be particularly important or urgent. Is that correct?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to refrain from reflecting on parallel universes and how the Social Democrats could have been less pushy and scared away the Green Party in Stockholm city, or how the Social Democrats could have been less pushy and scared away liberals from collaborations both here and around the country. One could delve into that for a long time. I see that Member Thorell is laughing in agreement, so who knows, perhaps it also occurs within the Social Democrats?

But basically, I and the Liberals think that there should be research funding for those researchers who conduct research of good quality. It is not strange. It is actually a very clear parallel to aid. If one provides aid of good quality, there should be funds for that.

Since it is clear that no bag of money is infinite. We must be able to direct money sometimes, we must be able to set up criteria for who should receive money and so on because resources are finite.

When it comes to the evaluation, I nevertheless want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, that it is interesting that Member Thorell, as I understood it, in his speech earlier spent quite a lot of time criticizing that the government wants to evaluate and introduce changes to the aid. But now Member Thorell instead criticizes the government for what the Member considers to be too little evaluation.

I can only state that I think it is good that there is evaluation and that evaluation is carried out with good quality. I can state that in my work I often make use of the investigators that Thorell refers to. And I can also state that when one has evaluated the quality of the aid and how the aid functions, one must also dare to follow up with reforms. It is precisely what this government is doing now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! At the end of last year, the government adopted a new reform agenda for the aid policy. It was drafted in closed negotiations between the Tidö parties without sufficient opportunities for the opposition, authorities, and relevant organizations to comment. The contrast to the broad consensus that characterized the PGU is striking.

The list of how problematic the development of the government's reform agenda for aid has been can be long. Several times, civil society has warned about how they have not been allowed to participate in the development of new decisions and how they do not even receive information about major changes in time to adjust their operations. This has put them in a situation where they cannot effectively plan their operations.

Most recently, in March this year, Sida announced that all agreements with strategic partner organizations, SPOs, would be terminated and would not receive further support after the turn of the year. This concerns well-known organizations such as Kvinna till Kvinna, Rädda Barnen, Union to Union, and Naturskyddsföreningen. These are actors who, with their specialized expertise, have ensured that gender equality work, children's rights, climate adaptation, and trade union organizing have been promoted in the world's most vulnerable countries, always in consultation with local partners.

The scrapped support for these organizations contributes to the fact that over 2,000 agreements with various local actors in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries now need to be terminated. It is pure madness to treat built-up competence in this way.

Civil society organizations testify about how their partners are directly affected by the new regulatory letter to Sida. The trust that has been built up between organizations and local communities is destroyed when promised work plans cannot be guaranteed. It concerns organizations that struggle with teeth and nails to keep children away from violent gangs or protect them from violence by violent men, which work with rehabilitation and psychosocial support for children who have experienced difficult things and which hold courses on how children can be raised without violence. Several of the organizations risk being shut down if the support is withheld. The small organizations are particularly affected, those that, with the help of Swedish organizations, are in the process of building up activities and structures so that they can stand stronger at the end of the contract period.

Minister for Foreign Aid Johan Forssell says that the reason for wanting to end the funding of the strategic partner organizations is that they want to reduce the number of transaction links. That may sound good, but what is not understood is that the partnership with these organizations is the effective way of working. They are specialists in their fields, with established working methods and networks in the recipient countries. If Sida is to take over this, the administrative burden on the agency will increase significantly and the efficiency will instead decrease - contrary to what the government says it wants to achieve.

Madam Speaker! The reform agenda is losing focus on global sustainable development and the needs of the most vulnerable. Instead, the focus has shifted to viewing aid as a tool to promote Swedish interests.

In principle, trade can be good for development and be an important part of Sweden's international development cooperation. However, aid exists to help the most needy out of hunger, poverty, and oppression. It is not intended to benefit Swedish or European export companies.

The reform agenda uses aid to promote the Swedish economy and to support Sweden's increasingly restrictive refugee policy. Instead of all policy areas working towards a sustainable and just world, where no one should be forced to live in poverty and oppression, aid shall now work towards the goals of other Swedish policy areas. It is a shift that is illustrated by the reform agenda's slogan of sustainable growth, which is to replace global sustainable development.

The shift is incomprehensible and has devastating consequences. It is a staggering action by the government to use aid to prioritize Swedish interests instead of strengthening peace and development.

The "do no harm" principle means understanding that aid and support can contribute to strengthening peace and development, but that it can simultaneously contribute to worsening a conflict if it is not managed in a responsible manner. Now the government is doing exactly this: harm.

When Minister for Development Cooperation Johan Forssell speaks about development aid, he more often uses words such as Swedish companies, trade, growth, and investments than words such as democracy, equality, and human rights. It is a rhetoric that is reminiscent of the 1970s, when trade and investments were highlighted as the solution to making China democratic. And the aid was supposed to promote Swedish exports. But China did not become democratic, and the export-promoting aid was found to be ineffective poverty reduction and was banned by the OECD.

Now the government wants to dust off the old policy and call it modern, even though the OECD in its mid-term review of Swedish aid has recently warned Sweden that aid for the promotion of Swedish trade is not effective.

The Minister for Development Cooperation says that the countries he visits want trade instead of aid. But the Minister for Development Cooperation should know that increased trade can risk leading to an increase in the power and wealth of corrupt leaders, and it is therefore not so surprising that these leaders request this in dialogue with the minister.

Development aid, on the other hand, reaches women's organizations and human rights movements that want to challenge repressive leaders and promote democracy building and welfare from the grassroots and upwards.

Madam Speaker! We support Ukraine in their struggle for freedom. But the necessary support for Ukraine must not lead to Sweden abandoning other vulnerable parts of the world. Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening today. In 2024, support will be concluded for Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Mali, and South Sudan, some of the world's most vulnerable countries. South Sudan is at the bottom of the UN's ranking of human development, the Human Development Index.

Swedish development aid is focused on peaceful and inclusive societies, livelihoods, and basic social services. In both Sida's and civil society's work, there is a strong emphasis on equality. The work for women's and girls' rights has yielded results. But the progress risks being undermined now that Sweden is withdrawing.

The development aid to South Sudan has gone from 434 million kronor to 0 kronor in two years. This rapid phase-out is being carried out despite the fact that the aid makes a big difference, despite the fact that there are no other countries stepping in when Sweden leaves, and despite the fact that the country is in an extremely sensitive situation ahead of an election later this year.

Sweden remains in South Sudan with humanitarian support, but we know that humanitarian aid cannot solve fundamental problems. It is needed for acute needs, but it is always more expensive than preventing disasters. To prevent new humanitarian crises from arising, one needs to work long-term and purposefully and let different forms of aid work together.

Madam Speaker! The world now needs to collectively find ways toward development toward a world that is more equal, egalitarian and sustainable. The global sustainability goals in Agenda 2030 and in the Paris Agreement shall guide politics, and Sweden shall continue to be a strong and driving force to achieve them. These are goals that we have set up together in the world and for which we all must increase efforts to reach. We want Sweden to reintroduce the feminist foreign policy.

Sweden shall continue to clearly stand up for women's right to abortion in international contexts and attempt to influence those countries that have abortion legislation that does not stem from the pregnant person's right to decide over their own body. It is also important that aid funds go towards work for SRHR and to civil society organizations that attempt to influence the situation in their own countries. Those forces shall have our support.

All around the world, people are persecuted, harassed, and discriminated against solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Discrimination leads to hbtqi people being imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. In seventy countries, same-sex relations are completely prohibited. Therefore, Sweden's support for those working with hbtqi people's rights is crucial for many organizations. For Sweden's efforts to be meaningful, it is central that the projects and programs implemented are planned and followed up in dialogue with the hbtqi movement in the country concerned.

Madam Speaker! Climate emissions must be reduced. All countries must take responsibility for their part, but we also know that it is the global north that has historically stood and still stands for the largest emissions. Climate justice means that we must now help each other. We will only reach the goals together.

The climate, environmental destruction, the extinction of biodiversity, pandemics, war and conflicts are the great challenges of our time. They are often global and cross-border and require collective efforts to be stopped. Through climate aid, we support developing countries in their development and their implementation of the Paris Agreement.

While we and other Western countries have built our prosperity on a fossil basis, the growing economies cannot repeat those mistakes. Climate aid must therefore increase. Large-scale financing of climate measures is required for investments in both reduced emissions and more climate adaptation. Developing countries must also have the opportunity to build sustainable renewable energy systems and adapt their societies to the changed climate we are already seeing.

Sweden's aid to climate, environment and biodiversity must increase. Children and young people are hit hard by climate change. Future generations must be placed at the center of the recovery. The phasing out of fossil energy as well as increased support for renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy distribution must continue to be central starting points for Sweden's development cooperation, not least with the multilateral development banks. The Swedish support through the environment and climate funds is also continuing to be central.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's long-term international development cooperation aims to lift people out of poverty and oppression. The cuts and changes that the government and Sida are now implementing affect precisely those people whom the development cooperation exists to support.

Miljöpartiet wants instead that the experience, expertise, and role of Swedish civil society organizations shall be protected. It is important so that the aid can be as effective as possible. The support for information and communication must also be put back. It is needed so that the Swedish organizations can conduct public education and information initiatives about global development in Sweden and be able to show that another world is possible – one that is built on solidarity and on the belief that we best create a better world together.

This government's policy is the exact opposite. They want to promote Swedish interests at the expense of the world's poorest and most vulnerable. They should be ashamed.

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 4.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Westerlund (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 2 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)