International aid

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The government parties, together with the Sweden Democrats, within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, have decided that Sweden shall deviate from the so-called one percent target. This means that we will freeze the aid framework at 56 billion kronor annually during the next three years.

56 billion kronor is a lot of money, and as many already know, Sweden is the world's largest aid donor. It varies slightly depending on how one counts, but regardless of how one counts, we are in any case one of the world's absolute largest aid donors.

But not least against the background of what has now occurred with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is entirely reasonable that Sweden is participating and contributing to and financing reconstruction and support for people who are suffering in various ways. There is also a consensus in this chamber that we shall continue to contribute humanitarily, militarily, politically and financially to help Ukraine in the situation that the country finds itself in.

In a world where many people are suffering and in distress, it is not unreasonable for wealthy countries to provide assistance and reconstruction. This is something that quite few people oppose. It is perfectly reasonable that we help those in distress, and therefore we will increase humanitarian aid, promote peace and security, and make a prioritized effort on democracy and free elections.

But tax money should not be used unwisely. When there is no possibility for follow-up and when there is a lack of consequence analyses, we need to stop and reform. It is even more unreasonable not to stop if there are signals showing a lack of transparency and a lack of consequence analyses, which means that we do not really know where our tax funds are going. It is problematic. There are even signals that some of the aid money is counterproductive and sometimes even fuels corruption and violence.

We must not forget whose money it is that we are giving away. It is hard-working citizens who have given us as politicians the trust to manage their money. It is therefore not our - the politicians' - money. It is not the state's money that we are handling.

It is good to remind oneself of this sometimes by, for example, quoting Gustav Möller, who is said to have said: Every wasted tax krona is a theft from the people.

Mr. Speaker! I have myself previously worked in the business sector with organizational development. One can use different principles and techniques when setting goals. A technique that I myself have used quite a bit is called the KAR-RAK technique. It means that one either starts from competence and activity – in this case, the resources one has – to then set a goal, a result, or one chooses to set the result first and, based on this, choose which activities and what competence are needed.

I view very positively that the government has now chosen to abandon a model that is quite inefficient and instead move towards what I call the RAK-technique, where one sets the goal first: What is it that we want to achieve? Once the goal has been set, one mobilizes the resources needed. In that way, one can create a significantly more efficient and more easily navigable system that functions more effectively. I mean that the reform that is also being made now is completely central and necessary.

Right now, a preparation is underway in the Government Offices to analyze how we should prioritize moving forward. In addition to this, there are also a number of reports from, among others, the Swedish National Audit Office and the Expert Group for Aid Analysis that clearly point out the deficiencies that exist today within the aid policy.

I would like to raise some examples that I consider highly relevant so that also those listening to this debate can understand why this specific reform is as necessary as I believe it is.

As late as last year, 2021, a report was published that sharply criticized the aid. Between the years 2001 and 2020, Sweden has paid out almost 14 billion kronor in aid to Afghanistan. The report states that "in essence, the results of the development work have been weak." Furthermore, it writes: "The level of the financial flows and the lack of coordination and consistency between interventions make it not unreasonable to assert that large aid volumes and the war on terror together have rather contributed to than countered corruption and undermined all potential for sustainability."

Another report was the Riksrevisionen's analysis of Sida's guarantee activities, which noted that Sweden often, without clear analysis, waived the setup costs that the recipient country is intended to pay, likely because it contributes to reaching the one percent goal. Furthermore, Riksrevisionen points out that the work with loans and guarantees from Sida is often deprioritized, because the loan amounts are not included in the aid goal of 1 percent of GNP.

Another example is the so-called fungibility, which means that when one does not want to support a warlord or a dictatorship directly, one instead allows for the construction of a school, a water treatment plant, or a hospital. These are naturally good ambitions and can seem unproblematic. But even those interventions release money that, for example, a regime can use for weapons which are subsequently used for war. The donor countries take care of the population's basic needs so that the regime or the dictator can continue with its buildup of what it has as an ambition to do. It is problematic.

According to several experts, fungibility has been standard within Swedish aid since the 60s. It has therefore been ongoing for a very long time. I listened to a very interesting expert on aid who gave an example of exactly this and how the aid even contributed to something as terrible as a civil war.

The example was in the near past and was about when South Sudan became independent from Sudan in 2011. South Sudan lacked everything, and aid organizations from all over the world joined forces to equip the country with social services, infrastructure etcetera, because everything was lacking.

It resulted in the government not engaging in those issues because the aid organizations took care of everything necessary. The consequence of this was that the population did not pay any particularly high tax. This in turn caused the government to not see the value of the people. The people stopped having confidence in the government, and a few years later, the civil war was a fact. The aid was not the only cause. But it was definitely a factor. That is what I want to emphasize with my speech today.

To begin with, I mean that it is central to link aid to trade issues. It is important because no country moves from poverty to wealth through aid. We therefore need to strengthen the role of the business sector to move from aid dependency to trade so that countries become independent. Market-oriented and sustainable investments are important in these countries. Therefore, we believe that an increased use of guarantees will also generate good results.

Mr. Speaker! In our neighborhood, Russia's heinous invasion of Ukraine has further changed the conditions. We will need to prioritize our neighborhood for a long time to come in order to rebuild Ukraine in various ways. Every day we see on the news and meet people who have endured the terrible events that have now occurred in our neighborhood.

The Sweden Democrats also argue that we need to prioritize the regions and countries where we can seriously make a big difference. We need to review which receiving countries we work with and perhaps reduce the number of countries in order to become truly good and create truly good conditions in the fewer countries we work with.

We also mean that we need to focus on what we ourselves are very good at working with, for example innovation and technology within the energy sector or forestry assistance, so that we become really good at it.

We want to invest more in bilateral forest projects that provide more control instead of just giving through the UN's funds, which risk becoming unnecessarily expensive.

One thing that is often missed is that one initiates forestry projects to counteract, for example, desertification, but one does not have plans for how to utilize the products. We therefore mean that it is important that small-scale industries are established in connection with the plantations as well, in order to create employment for the local population.

Consequences that have otherwise been able to be seen are that the local population counteracts the projects that the aid organizations carry out precisely because they do not understand the purpose of it but want to use the land for other activities.

Hans Rosling taught us that children now attend school to a greater extent in the world. It is, of course, something that is fantastic and something that we should promote. It is a human right. But we also mean that more money was needed for vocational training to provide basic technical competence to a greater extent as we enter a technological development.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say very briefly in summary that I am glad that we are now seeing a reform of Swedish aid. It is not sound to pump money into something based on a percentage target. It hinders efficiency in a way that is not good. All organizations benefit from stopping, prioritizing, and streamlining.

To conduct activities that do not require follow-up and analysis is unhealthy. Linking aid to trade will create better conditions for countries to stand on their own feet, which must nevertheless be the purpose of the aid work.

It cannot be that countries should be dependent on aid year after year. No human being or nation can gain a sense of self-esteem from living on subsidies.

We will also make a prioritized investment in democracy, elections and humanitarian aid. We see that as completely central and important.

Let me finally read out a well-known proverb that in any case summarizes my view on aid: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I support the committee's proposal.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the first time in decades, poverty in the world is increasing. During 2022 alone, the number of people in extreme poverty increased to 719 million, according to the World Bank. This means that almost one in ten people in the world lives in poverty.

A hunger catastrophe is currently unfolding in the world. According to the UN, 345 million people suffer from acute malnutrition. That is a figure that has more than doubled since 2019. There are 46 million children who are in flight. Many live under completely inhuman conditions in refugee camps for long periods. The cause is a series of global crises: the climate crisis, the corona epidemic, and a growing number of wars and conflicts.

The Sweden Democrats have, together with the government, agreed to reduce aid. You actually want to reduce the aid even more. You wanted to halve it from the beginning. To reduce aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are at their greatest is a blow to the people who are having it the hardest in the world. It clearly shows what kind of party the Sweden Democrats are.

In the Tidö Agreement that the government negotiated with the Sverigedemokraterna, it is established that aid shall be used to achieve migration policy objectives. In other words, people shall be forced back to where they fled from. It is a departure from the very basic principle of aid, which says that aid should benefit the recipient and not the donor. I wonder how that is going to work.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question!

That the Sweden Democrats have a completely different view of the world than the Left Party, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and perhaps eventually the Centre Party in some cases is not news. What the member is highlighting now is the question of why we want to reduce aid.

I would like to rephrase that question. The reason why the Sweden Democrats and the other parties that have entered into the Tidö Agreement want to streamline aid is for exactly the reasons that I have just highlighted in my speech.

The members of the committee could listen to the presentation and the examples that have emerged from various organizations and the criticism that has been raised against Swedish aid and what the effects of the Swedish aid sometimes become. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to realize that something must be done.

We must streamline our aid work. Sweden spends the most money in the world per capita on aid. That money is neither the Left Party's money, my money, or the state's money. It is the people who work, toil, run businesses, and go to work every morning in this country who have generated those resources for us to manage that money. I take that money seriously.

I mean that all waste of tax money is an insult to those who toil every day in this country. For that reason, it makes perfect sense that we want to decouple aid from the one percent target, that we want to reduce aid, in order to increase efficiency and to ensure that the resources we allocate to aid are used for their intended purpose. It is sound.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member of Parliament Christiansson claims that Swedish aid would be substandard or poor. That is actually not true. It is completely incorrect. Swedish aid often receives top marks globally. We have aid that is both transparent and effective. To claim anything else is actually not true. Then there are always things that can be improved. But in the big picture, Swedish aid receives top marks.

So, now they want to change something that works and has worked very well for a long time. Based on the objective of aid, the aid should be based on the recipient's needs and perspective, not on favoring Swedish interests and Swedish trade, which the member here would like to talk about.

There is a framework, GPEDC, which speaks specifically about aid effectiveness. And the four principles imply local ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and shared accountability. The principles are based on decades of experience of what exactly constitutes effective aid.

Do the Sweden Democrats think we should abandon these principles? Should we not continue to live up to these important principles for aid?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When one has these types of debates, it is quite classic, as I see it, that there are sometimes sacred cows in Swedish politics, things that one simply is not allowed to talk about. You are not allowed to touch it and not to raise the issue. If one were even to utter anything about this, one receives an epithet. Or else, such a rhetorical blunder is made, as we now heard from the rostrum, where the member simply tries to paint or describe a picture that the Tidö Agreement and the Sverigedemokraterna want to remove the aid completely. Everything that is good about the aid, we shall remove, and we shall have no more aid. Then the debate is built up from this half-truth.

But no, thank you, I do not willingly enter on that ground because it is dishonest to argue in this way.

What we are doing is that we are reducing the margin. This agreement means that we allocate 56 billion kronor annually to aid. It is still one of the world's largest aid programs.

No, we are not going to remove the aid that works. No, we are not going to stop giving aid. On the other hand, we will, on the small margin where we reduce, streamline and make things better.

It is not I who paints the picture that Swedish aid is not working. Lotta Johnsson Fornarve would like to present it as if it is Alexander Christiansson from Sverigedemokraterna who is directing this criticism.

I am new to the committee, and I have spent some time over the past few weeks sitting and reading through these reports. And these reports are unequivocal when it comes to the fact that there is a lack of follow-up and impact assessments and that there are deficiencies in Swedish aid. If we can agree on that, we might also be able to address these problems somewhere. But if one simply closes their eyes and says that there are no problems and that we should continue to increase aid and just pump in money even when it fuels corruption and violence, I regret that. It is unhealthy.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was a fascinating argument from the Sweden Democrats. With this definition of aid, one could in that case exclude a great deal of support to countries that are non-democracies with the argument that the aid in that case displaces things and creates space for other things. It would be a devastating consequence in the long run.

I want to remember that South Korea was once the world's poorest country - 1956 - and it was then that large Swedish and international aid efforts were started. Now things have improved somewhat for this country. It is possible to help countries and develop them. And Swedish aid is world-leading in terms of finding models for how one actually helps countries to develop and gain their own strength and capacity.

The Sweden Democrats always argue that we should have a very restrictive refugee and migration policy and say that it is better to help people where they live and that they should not come here to Sweden. We have heard it for decades, and we also see now that it is a policy that is gaining traction. But shouldn't one at least help them at home if one is going to cut back on aid?

Here, the Sverigedemokraterna representative Alexander Christiansson is trying to say that you only want more efficient aid. But it was only a year ago that you said you were going to cut aid by 50 percent. It was no other governance model. It was truly to set a ceiling and say that it should be 50 percent - half should be removed.

Oscar Sjöstedt, your economic policy spokesperson, said that he would not cry if Sida were shut down.

Apart from the beautiful speech about efficiency, the truth is that you do not like aid. You do not think that one should help. You want to cut aid significantly.

Therefore, I still pose the fundamental question: Do you still think it would be reasonable to cut aid by 50 percent, or are you satisfied with the change that you have now secured in the Tidö Agreement?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tomas Eneroth for the questions. It was a good input. The member highlighted South Korea. I have myself worked in aid activities, but not in South Korea. I worked in the Philippines, and I know that aid makes a difference. If it had been the case that aid does not make a difference at all, we would have zeroed this appropriation.

Now Tomas Eneroth is doing exactly the same thing as was done in the previous exchange. He highlights a narrative that the Sverigedemokraterna do not want any aid. But that is not the case.

Tomas Eneroth, who is a former minister whom I actually respect in many ways, should be able to make the connection that efficiency is central and important. It is often said that what is sound for the business sector in a recession is that companies pause and reflect on their costs and expenses to streamline so that they use their capital in the right way.

Why should there be certain sacred cows within Swedish politics that cannot be questioned and that cannot be cut back? I do not understand the reasoning. It would be interesting to hear Tomas Eneroth elaborate on that a little bit.

I am fascinated that Tomas Eneroth also highlighted the migration policy and the Sweden Democrats' ambition to reduce it. Tomas Eneroth's party leader said the other day that it was the Social Democrats who created the paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy and that we actually would not have gotten anything through, because it was the Social Democrats who made this reorganization.

Is Tomas Eneroth satisfied with the migration policy that the Tidö Agreement entails?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Alexander Christiansson did not answer the question of whether the Sweden Democrats stand by their demand that 50 percent of the aid should be cut. If it had only been about a desire for efficiency, I could have respected that. But when Oscar Sjöstedt says that he would not cry if Sida were abolished, I wonder what efficiency calculation this statement is built on.

Generally, I wonder, which I will return to in my speech, what consequence descriptions are actually being made regarding the reorganization of the aid policy that is currently taking place.

Again: Do you want to cut aid by 50 percent, and how is civil society supposed to streamline? I believe this debate is followed by very many in civil society who have worked and have worked for many years with aid and are experts in it. They have helped individuals, groups of people, countries and regions to get out of the situation of poverty. They have made incredible efforts. I believe they are a bit curious about how Alexander Christiansson expresses that they should be streamlined. Can we get a proposal and a small list of what Plan, the Church of Sweden, Diakonia or others should do to become more efficient? What measure of efficiency are we talking about? Is it the percentage of hunger, is it well-being or is it a little less of sexual health and reproductive opportunities? How do the Sweden Democrats see civil society streamlining its aid?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I apologize for missing the answer to the first question regarding the 50 percent issue. The Sweden Democrats have set a goal of 50 percent because we believe that much of what is done today can be done better. The rhetoric is often about what we then want to reduce.

There is quite a lot we would need to cut back on. Efforts are also being made that might make some difference on the margin. But it is better to use those resources for a smaller number of countries that we scale down to. Then we can work with them and do it really well, instead of being everywhere, all the time and doing everything. We mean that is a much better way to go.

What Oscar Sjöstedt has said about Sida and whether he would cry if it were shut down, the member is welcome to ask him. Personally, I would not cry if Sida were shut down. I do not think I would have literally cried if some agency were shut down. But it might have been unfortunate if Sida were shut down, because they do a lot that is good. And we should not reduce that. It also falls within the framework of what we have now reached. I therefore do not really see the problems that the member is painting.

The question concerned civil society. That is also why we are redirecting resources to civil society. We mean that the resources to civil society should increase. Civil society often does things better than state agencies.

The National Audit Office itself highlighted the problem that one cannot follow up on everything that occurs within, for example, the UN organizations. It has been problematic. We believe that there are things to be done there as well.

In any case, I am new to the job. I am new to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I am new to this budget issue that is linked to aid. There are, therefore, absolutely things that one can familiarize oneself with. That is also why the investigation is underway in the Government Offices, in order to find out how we should prioritize.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Christiansson raised in his speech a number of perhaps not lies, but in any case strongly biased myths that circulate about the aid, for example that it would lead to civil war or be completely meaningless. It unfortunately shows a remarkable ignorance.

Swedish aid is effective and has high measurability. There is as much statistics and figures as one could want regarding this. The organizations that work with aid do not do much else than to follow up and report, so that we who work with the issues can have a good basis for the decisions that are to be made. It is therefore only a matter of reading some other reports in that case, if Member Christiansson has read so many.

When it comes to the claim that the aid to Afghanistan would have been completely meaningless, we can look at some figures on what happened between 2000 and 2020. The number of children attending school increased from 800,000 to 9 million. The number of girls attending school increased from nearly 0 to 39 percent. Maternal and child mortality was more than halved. Income per capita increased by 75 percent between 2001 and 2018. And Afghanistan's access to electricity increased from 22 percent in 2005 to 98 percent in 2019. I think those are results that are worth highlighting and that one should not try to turn away from.

The member also raised the importance of tax payments. It is also a Swedish specialty. The Swedish Tax Agency is present in many countries and helps to build up good tax systems. We need to continue doing such things.

I will in the next round pose a question regarding the fact that preparations are ongoing.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Janine Alm Ericson!

When it comes to myths and it being meaningless, the reports I have read are not from Flashback or anything of the sort, if that is what the member is implying. They come from the Swedish National Audit Office and the Expert Group for Aid Analysis. I do not think I have read almost anything other than just their reports, except for some articles from a couple of experts who have worked with aid issues for many years for, among others, Sida. That is where I have gathered my information. It is also their criticism that I channel in my speech. Should one call it myths and meaningless? No, I do not think so. I do not even think I take the time to address it.

Then you do the same thing again, for the third time in a row. You lift up the good examples and ask: Why do you want to cut the aid? No, we do not want to cut the things that work. We want to work with the things that work. But those that do not work, the things that Member Janine Alm Ericson calls myths, we believe are worth analyzing to see what has happened and what needs to be made more efficient within Swedish aid.

It is once again the taxpayers' funds that we are handling. It is not Janine Alm Ericson's money, my money, the state's money, or money that grows on trees. It is people who create those funds, which we manage. They must be handled well. They must be handled well and sensibly. Therefore, we want to conduct the evaluation and reduce the aid in order to increase efficiency. It is that simple.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I did not mention a reduction of aid. Now Member Christiansson is constructing straw men to fight against.

When it comes to people's money and that we should do what is most efficient for Swedish taxpayers, that is an opinion that we share to the highest degree. That is what we try to do every day. But what the Sweden Democrats and Member of Parliament Christiansson miss is that the money spent on aid also contributes to solving our challenges, to Sweden getting better and easier, because there are many global challenges that must be solved together.

I really did not think that the reports from neither EBA nor the National Audit Office were meaningless. Rather, it was that the member presented the aid as meaningless. There should be no doubts about that.

We also listen a lot to the evaluations that are made. It is incredibly important. Things can be streamlined and done better. But the member takes it a bit too far in his own purposes.

I actually want to ask about this matter of the member saying that preparation is ongoing. We notice that. This budget does not provide much answer but leads to great concern. A major reallocation is occurring, completely without transparency or preparation with either civil society or the Riksdag, where there is an incredible amount of knowledge about this.

I would therefore like to ask a question to the member. How can the Sweden Democrats, if they are as grounded in reports and efficiency as they say, think it is good to push for major changes without conducting consequence analyses or involving a broader preparation with the knowledgeable civil society and the Riksdag?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If I misunderstood the member's opening remarks as a criticism of our reduction of aid, I apologize. I perceived it in that way, but I may have heard incorrectly. In that case, I withdraw it.

I did not mean that the member said about the reports that they were meaningless without it being myths. It was literally that word that was used, that I referred to myths. I assert that the reports from the National Audit Office and the Expert Group for Aid Analysis are not myths, but they are truth and reality.

But if the Green Party has the perception that they are myths, I understand that one would prefer to turn a blind eye to the problems. Then we will never see any change when it comes to these things. Then we will continue to put in 1 percent of GDP year after year and never address the issues. It is a waste of tax money - sometimes, not always but sometimes. That is what I mean is a problem.

I am very grateful for the budget and look forward to seeing where we will land moving forward regarding the aid issues. I understand that it creates anxiety for many who work within this. Change creates anxiety. One might think that the best thing would have been if everything always got to stay as it usually is. It is usually I, as a conservative, who is often called backward-looking, and it is said that I would like to preserve. But in this case, it is I who am progressive and Miljöpartiet who is perhaps a bit conservative.

I only assert that we need a new perspective on aid. I believe that we will land on something fantastically good with the new aid policy that we will develop.

We must give this some time. That is why we are not cutting the aid budget by a huge amount right now, but letting it stay at 56 billion kronor annually for three years. It is a very large amount of money. We need to review this, and we have three or four years to do that work. We will see what we land on.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have to debate the aid policy and the government's budget proposal in this area. In many ways, it is a historic day but actually also a rather sad day, because the goal that has guided the aid policy for over 50 years has now been abandoned. For over 50 years, at least in this Riksdag, we have had a common ambition: to allocate 1 percent, one hundredth, of our wealth to combat the poverty, the oppression, the vulnerability, and the unreasonable inequality that many people in the world suffer from.

Some countries have corresponding goals as Sweden. Even more have with admiration and respect seen how Sweden has taken its responsibility. All over the world, Swedish aid has helped people out of poverty and out of oppression. It has given hope and shown how international support can be combined with efforts that strengthen the own capacity for security and livelihood. It is a support without requirements for military or commercial obligations and a support that has been there with the world's common development as the starting point, not national self-interests.

But an SD-led right-wing government now wants something else. We can see the biggest transition of Swedish aid in several decades, this time as part of a budget process without transparency and preparation. There has been no opportunity for the various actors in aid to be involved and contribute their expertise. It has been without investigation and referral procedures, as is otherwise customary. Rumors say - I do not know if it is true - that Sida was given a few days to prepare cuts in the billions. And all those actors in civil society who have the expert competence and who, together with the state interventions, uphold our aid policy - Diakonia, Svenska kyrkan, Act, Plan and OPC - have only been heard thanks to an initiative we took in the committee by arranging a hearing.

For me, who throughout my entire time as a politician has championed civil society, it is extra sad to see how, from the government's side, one is now disregarding the agreement that exists regarding civil society being given the opportunity to submit its views to the state. There is such an agreement. It was a platform that, funnily enough, was put forward when Göran Hägglund was minister. He had a strong commitment to it. This becomes a symbol for the rightward shift and perhaps the desert trek that the Kristdemokraterna have actually undertaken during these years.

The Christian Democrats but also the Liberals promised to be the guarantor that the one percent goal would remain during the government negotiations. As recently as August 31, a representative for the Christian Democrats in the committee said that one can rely on the fact that the Christian Democrats will stand up for the one percent goal. And from the Liberals' side, we could hear in the election campaign:

"Our party has at all times stood up for the one percent goal for aid policy. A liberal principle that we will not change today or tomorrow."

Now we know how it will be. Now we know that these are promises that were broken. Now we also know that Johan Pehrson's classic words, that one says one thing before the election and something else after the election, is something that has also become reality in this area. We recognize it from climate policy, equality policy, and other policy areas. When SD wants something, Moderates, Liberals, and Christian Democrats run in that direction. It is sad and worrying. It is even worse when it comes to aid. It affects the very poorest, the people who are most vulnerable, the people who are affected by war, famine, and oppression.

And we all here know that the shift we are now seeing is only the beginning if the Sweden Democrats, as we heard today, are held. It is actually only just over a year since the Sweden Democrats demanded a halving of the aid. Is that where we are headed? Is this only the beginning?

We also see that the image of Sweden internationally is beginning to change. Sweden is moving from being a global active and progressive force to becoming a regional, perhaps slightly more passive and in the worst case reactive actor. It is noticeable in foreign policy, and it is definitely noticeable in aid policy. Or as Petra Tötterman Andorff, who is the secretary-general for Kvinna till Kvinna, said: Now Sweden is taking off the global leadership jersey.

It is, moreover, the same development that we have seen within climate policy. I think that perhaps what is most embarrassing is the actions during COP 27, where it became internationally noticed that Sweden, in the midst of the worst climate crisis, will lower its ambitions and increase emissions. Scania's CEO, Christian Levin, said: The industry cannot afford cowardly climate politicians.

It also clearly shows what the Swedish business community, in large parts, thinks about the government's climate policy.

We Social Democrats had the goal that Sweden should become the world's first fossil-free welfare country and were clear about that in our climate policy and industrial policy. In the same way, it is with aid. We stand firm on the one percent goal. We reject the government's proposal to abandon this in the aid framework. A Social Democratic government – when we return – will gradually restore the one percent goal. In the first step, we want to increase the aid framework by 2.5 billion kronor for 2023. We believe, namely, that aid is needed to reduce inequalities in the world, to uphold international law, to promote democracy and human rights, to strengthen the rule of law, to strengthen equality, to have a children's rights perspective, and to promote an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable development.

It is far from the ambitions that this government now expresses. I have read and heard the new Minister, who is otherwise not here today, speak about his vision of how aid should be. He says that it should exist to strengthen Swedish exports, to facilitate migration policy, and to strengthen Swedish interests—as if democracy, poverty reduction, or sustainable development were not Swedish interests. But by him saying so, it is perhaps still appropriate to point out that such a direction stands in direct conflict with international principles.

The OECD has since 2003 prohibited tied aid because it creates problems for the recipients and involves increased costs of between 15 and 30 percent when one does not start from a local market. It would be deeply unfortunate if the focus of aid fell on Sweden-promotion and on the Swedish export agenda instead of on goals for poverty reduction.

We Social Democrats believe in combining national and global responsibility even in times of crisis. A world with greater inequality, with more hunger and with more conflicts is a less secure world, not only there but also here.

The number of people living in poverty and famine is increasing right now, not least as an indirect consequence of the war taking place in our vicinity, in Ukraine. Just as it is for Sweden to provide extensive support to Ukraine and to those who have been affected by Russia's unjust and illegal war, it must be to continue making efforts for all those who are affected in other parts of the world. It is about not giving up hope for democracy and human rights, not giving up the fight for girls' right to education, and not turning a blind eye to starvation and famine.

Today, this debate is followed by very many people who work, for example, with strengthening democracy in Latin America. I am thinking of the peace process in Colombia, where Swedish efforts have been crucial for the talks, or of the important efforts from the embassy and several Swedish aid organizations to promote human rights in Guatemala. What will happen with those efforts going forward? Can they continue? Can someone from the government parties report on this, since the government is not here?

The debate is also followed today by those Swedes who have worked hard and committedly in, for example, Africa for girls' right to education, sexual and reproductive health and basic human rights, which are most systematically oppressed in many of the world's countries. Can the efforts to strengthen these girls continue, or are these also activities that will be cut now when the negotiations on the regulatory letter are ongoing?

We Social Democrats have been able to successfully focus on the rights of girls and women, not least through the formulation of a feminist foreign policy, partly to highlight the increased oppression that exists when reactionary forces emerge around the world. But now the feminist foreign policy is being scrapped. I think that sometimes you can hear the mocking laughter from the right-wing trolls online.

How will these activities proceed moving forward? Sweden has noted that girls and women around the world are being violated to a greater extent. They are denied rights, the right to decide over their own bodies, and the right to life and health. Will you fail in the work for equality? I note that the equality perspective is not even included in the budget bill's section on humanitarian aid, and it actually stands out for its absence in large parts of the budget bill.

In this context, it is also important to bring up the so-called core funding, which is absolutely crucial for strengthening the multilateral system in the long term and stably, primarily through the various organizations of the UN. This also means that Sweden's priorities often achieve stronger impact within the UN, something I myself have noticed when I have been on-site at the UN on a number of occasions and debated, worked, and acted. I can state that a reduced contribution to the UN has consequences, which was also pointed out during the hearing that we organized with the representatives from UNDP.

It is a big mistake by the government to cut support to the UN's organizations because that support is both complementary and also mutually reinforcing. Furthermore, I have not even seen the consequence descriptions, but it is well within the government parties to report what types of interventions the UN is currently making that are to be cut in the future.

Trust in the world takes years to build up, and Sweden has a strong trust. But it only takes weeks to tear down, and right now, the trust for Sweden's international reputation and international actions is being torn down.

More and more people are being driven into flight due to climate change. Furthermore, more and more wars and armed conflicts have their roots in climate change. Sweden must be a leader in contributing to the implementation of Agenda 2030 globally, both through the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, through development financing, and of course by fulfilling our commitments in the Paris Agreement.

Increased climate aid is therefore central to the international work and important for meeting commitments on increased climate financing, which we could hear during COP 27. Many countries, not least in Asia and Africa, must now receive both economic and technical support to implement climate measures and be able to adapt their societies to the climate changes that are occurring every day. Sweden should, with all the knowledge and competence we have, be involved and contribute, both financially and with the knowledge we have.

That is why it becomes embarrassing, once again, when the government chooses to brake the transition. Or as Volvo's sustainability chief said recently: "For the first thing, one can note that the budget for climate and environment is going down by five billion and that alone is a signal to the rest of the world that is very unfortunate - Sweden has for many years been an example for many countries."

That is how it is. Reducing the ambition for the climate transition and within aid leads to our own security also decreasing. Neither the world nor Sweden becomes safer because we scale back the ambitions in the climate and aid areas. It should be simple to understand. We are a small, export-dependent country, and what happens affects us. A global engagement in the world is important for Sweden. A failed peace process in Colombia results in more drugs on the streets in Stockholm. Reduced climate aid results in more refugees to Europe or, for that matter, increased emissions in our atmosphere.

Even in cases where we do not see the direct or indirect consequences in Sweden, perhaps it is the case that it is encouraging and sets legitimate demands on commitment, humanity, and solidarity to be one of the world's richest countries.

I began by saying that it is a historic but also a sad day, and today's debate will not change the fact that 50 years of support for the one percent goal is now gone.

Ahead of today's debate, many have reached out, not least liberals and Christian Democratic friends of mine whom I have met for many years in the Riksdag, and they wonder where the boundaries actually lie for their parties in the Riksdag. I wonder that too. Are there any red lines? Will we see a halving of the aid moving forward? Can we get an answer during the day?

Mr. Speaker! Since the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has given the budget policy a different direction than the one we Social Democrats want to see, we refrain from taking a position regarding the allocation of appropriations under expenditure area 7. Our budget alternative should be seen as a whole, so we do not break out individual parts. I therefore refer to our specific statement in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Büser (S) concurred.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Tomas Eneroth for a very good speech, which I agree with in large parts.

I would have gladly skipped this remark, but I cannot help but ask Tomas Eneroth why the Social Democrats, in their budget proposal, do not allocate 1 percent of the GNP to international aid.

In a time when aid is more important than ever, when we see how poverty is increasing very rapidly in the world, hunger catastrophes are a fact, and democracy and equality are regressing, the Social Democrats do not allocate 1 percent to aid. How can that be? The Social Democrats have for decades safeguarded and stood up for the one percent goal, but apparently no longer.

I am therefore both surprised and disappointed. When you held government power, you also made large deductions from aid to be used for refugee reception, which significantly eroded the aid. And now this.

In the shadow budget, you deviate from the one percent goal and allocate only 0.91 percent to aid. Why do you not stand up for the one percent goal in practice and allocate the funds required?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the praise! It warms the heart, and I also believe that we share the same view when it comes to the aid policy and, in large part, how it is designed.

Being in opposition also means that one has to handle the budget based on the conditions that the government is now providing. It means that we stand by the one percent goal and say that we will return to this goal as soon as we get the chance. We begin the scale-up now with 2.5 billion. I am old enough that I have actually experienced this once before during the 90s crisis. At that time, we had to do the equivalent and recreate the one percent goal.

What is happening here is something completely different. It is that one simply abolishes the very principle of allocating 1 percent. That is something we will never agree to.

Then, of course, it is absolutely crucial that we now have a discussion about which actual measures are going to be removed. I hope that both I and Lotta Johnsson Fornarve receive an answer from the government parties regarding that, as the concern this creates is noticed both by aid organizations but also out in the world.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Tomas Eneroth!

I would have liked to see the united opposition have been able to stand up for the one percent goal in practice, here and now, because it was needed. Certainly, it would have been possible if the political will had existed.

For us in Vänsterpartiet, the one percent goal is a matter of course, and we also allocate 1 percent in our budget proposal. We also want an additional climate aid. I heard that Tomas Eneroth spoke a lot about climate change and the importance of support for the climate. I wonder if the Socialdemokraterna could also consider an additional climate aid in the future.

I really hope that the Social Democrats will return to the one percent goal in practice as soon as possible, because it is needed in this time when we see how the gap between aid and need is increasing.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and I are in complete agreement. We do not hesitate for a second regarding the one percent goal; we even have a congress decision on it, so we intend to fulfill that. As soon as we have the opportunity to be in a government position, we will build it up, and we are doing so already in this budget proposal.

When it comes to climate efforts, it is absolutely necessary, whether it is within the framework of climate aid or in other parts. That was also what I chose to take up in the question regarding the government's actions during COP 27, where it became so clear how Sweden was almost isolated in its view of not participating and contributing financially for the transitions that need to occur in large parts of the world.

In the end, the government received enough international pressure, so they backed down. Fortunately, other countries – the Netherlands, Germany, France and others – put that pressure on Sweden. It was an unusual situation, because during my time as a minister and during our time in government, we were leading and pressing other European countries to act.

Now it has become a reverse development, and one must be glad that we are members of the European Union. I hope we both agree on that.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were many parts of Tomas Eneroth's speech that I would have liked to comment on, but I will have to return to them in my speech after the exchanges of remarks.

It was interesting to listen to Tomas Eneroth's speech. We might get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats stand behind the one percent goal. But they do not. What they also do not do is propose any reforms whatsoever for aid. Are there any new ideas? Are there any proposals on how this policy area can be developed and improved?

The answer when I read your specific statement in the report is no. Nothing shall be changed. Everything shall be as it has always been.

It is completely obvious that the Social Democrats have no policy for aid. And, Mr. Speaker, as recently as this spring, aid was used as a budget regulator.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to using aid as a budget regulator, do the Social Democrats have any ideas on how aid can be developed and improved?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that offense is the best defense when one is left helpless and, without a proper preparatory basis, does not know how the future aid policy should be designed. The fact is that descriptions in the budget bill are thin, and then one chooses to go on the offensive.

We stand behind the aid policy that has been built up over decades, not least during Social Democratic government rule. We are proud of the efforts being made in the world. Yes, it is certainly possible to make both efficiencies and improvements. But it is internationally witnessed and evaluated that good and effective efforts are being made.

The challenge instead will be to see if a new government will accept a reduction to 0.88 or 0.82 or if the question will be about 0.50 – which is what the Sverigedemokraterna actually want. Magdalena Thuresson has the opportunity to answer the question of how low the limit goes. We are clear about the one percent goal. We say that it is absolutely crucial to return to the one percent goal, and we allocate money in the budget to reach there. You say that the goal is no longer needed. That is where the battle stands.

You are betraying a consensus on Swedish foreign and aid policy that has been 50 years wide, and you are now saying that it is other measures and criteria that should be decisive. Furthermore, you are cooperating with a party that has a different measure, namely 50 percent.

My simple question back to Magdalena Thuresson is whether it is reasonable to go down to 50 percent. Are you prepared to do this?

I want to proceed with a second question. It is surprising that the Moderaterna, who are still a governing party, are making this restructuring so quickly without a preparatory basis and without even consulting civil society. Doesn't that feel a bit difficult?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This fixation on just paying out a certain proportion of bni. I can assure everyone following the debate that the government has higher ambitions for the aid than to get rid of a certain sum of money.

What one chooses to do with Swedish taxpayers' money, which is not spent on pressing commitments in our country, matters. How the aid is used also matters.

I note that Tomas Eneroth is unresponsive. There is no new idea for how aid can be developed. It is only about getting rid of a certain sum of money. I regret that.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask another question. I noted in Member Tomas Eneroth's speech that there was a certain mocking tone that one should have a more regional perspective in the aid policy. I would like to give Tomas Eneroth the opportunity to explain, elaborate, and answer the question of whether the Social Democrats share the view that during the coming years, Ukraine should be the largest recipient country of Swedish aid. A war is ongoing in our absolute vicinity. It will, of course, also have consequences for the Swedish aid budget. Do the Social Democrats share the view that Ukraine should be the largest recipient country of Swedish aid, or do you think that is to have a too regional perspective?

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe no one, either during our time in government or now in opposition, has doubted the Social Democrats' will to make efforts for Ukraine. We have marked this clearly in the efforts being made militarily, through aid funds, and in other ways. There is no dispute there.

The conflict lies in that you, in many contexts, clearly state reduced ambitions in other parts of the world. What I tried to say in my speech was that what happens in other parts of the world, whether it is in Latin America or the famine in Africa, which is an indirect consequence of the war in Ukraine, also concerns us.

I am not sure that the current government thinks this because there are ambitions to reduce, not least, the core support, that is, the UN's support for famine catastrophes and interventions where humanitarian catastrophes occur.

I also note that Magdalena Thuresson does not answer the question regarding the reduction to 50 percent. Is that something that the Moderaterna can accept? She does not distance herself but instead notes that the assistance must be effective, not a fictitious sum.

Everyone who has followed the Swedish aid debate for decades sees that a fantastic development has occurred, and we have been part of contributing to it. By pursuing a feminist foreign policy, more interventions within aid concerning girls' and women's rights are made than before. It is an increased focus towards not least climate aid and democracy issues, and it happens for good reason.

What was initially an aid based on saving people from starvation has become an aid that looks at the great challenges that exist in the world. There are more people living in non-democracies. More women are oppressed and lack rights to body and life. There, Sweden has the opportunity to provide assistance with knowledge and wealth.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! From what I have heard Tomas Eneroth say, I believe we share the view of how incredibly important the Swedish aid is and that the one percent goal should be maintained.

I also believe that we share the view that long-term aid should be protected. We in Centerpartiet believe that there is a great deal to be done regarding efficiency and clarifying issues regarding democracy, climate transition, and long-term jobs.

I, as someone who is new here, can see a great need for education, which is problematic in Swedish aid. Only a small proportion goes to education. But there, perhaps all parties can discuss how we view the issue.

Now Tomas Eneroth must answer the question on the one percent target once again. We share the opinion that one must adhere to the current budget, and we all want a restrictive state budget. The Center Party has nevertheless chosen to retain the one percent target, and thus we have a higher sum in this year's budget. How is it that the Social Democrats did not succeed with this?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Anna Lasses for her warming words. I also believe that we share the same view on aid policy. I am happy to participate in joint discussions on how we can further sharpen and strengthen it, not least ensuring that it contributes to increased educational opportunities worldwide. Education is perhaps the most effective way to help people out of poverty into self-sufficiency, own power, and the opportunity to influence social development.

We do not hesitate for a second on the one percent question. It is absolutely crucial. But I believe that all parties in opposition will have to feel the challenge that it always entails to sit in opposition and produce their budget alternatives.

This battle is about something else, namely the principle of the one percent goal. We stand behind it. In the budget proposal we have submitted, we believe that we should begin the way back by adding 2.5 billion kronor. During the years we have been in government, we have safeguarded the one percent goal. It will be the first thing we do when we return to government.

The important and decisive discussion now is to see a clear divide where Center's former coalition partners have chosen a different path. Liberals and Christian Democrats who previously defended aid, who have been deeply engaged in the issue, now stand together with the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates and worsen the possibilities for support and help to the most vulnerable in the world. I regret it, but I am all the more pleased that Center shares our view.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! It feels absolutely secure to hear that the intention is to return to the one percent target in the event of a change of government.

At the same time, one must be here and now. In the situation that Tomas Eneroth has so aptly described, with increased poverty and everything happening in the world, the climate transition that needs to be made and so on, I would have wished that one had chosen to prioritize this already in the current budget. Otherwise, there is a risk that one will fall behind on that, and then one stands there the day one possibly gets the chance to return. Will the Social Democrats be able to maintain this goal even if it turns out that we are then down to 0.5 or 0.7 percent?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! That is precisely the challenge.

Let's say we slide down to 0.5. No one knows how far this government and this parliamentary majority are prepared to go. Then every responsible party that wants to have the government power must be able to know that during the first year, the right priorities are being made.

That is why we say that we will not betray the one percent goal. We have established that at our congresses, and it is absolutely crucial. We are already starting a ramp-up here.

But we actually do not know, neither Anna Lasses nor I nor anyone else, how far they are prepared to go. The Sweden Democrats have said that they want to halve the aid, and we have so far not received any answers to the questions we have asked about whether it is something that other parties can imagine accepting. In that case, the return to 1 percent will take a little longer than a budget year.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the floor. Many interesting questions arose when I heard the members speak and not least during the subsequent exchanges of remarks.

Among other things, the member spoke about how one is now departing from a 50-year tradition. At the same time, the Social Democrats themselves are departing from that same tradition, and if one examines it year by year, one sees that it has actually varied a little bit. It is not every year that one has reached exactly 1 percent during these 50 years either.

Now a congress decision is being invoked. If the congress decision is so reliable and so governing, how is it then that the previous governing party is unable to prioritize 1 percent in this year's budget but ends up at 0.91 percent? It is very strange. How can one then be able to trust this congress decision in the future?

Since then, we have heard a lot of attempts to pretend as if the government is not prioritizing a lot of areas, even though it explicitly states in the budget that we are to fight poverty, that there shall be humanitarian aid, that we are to support civil society, that we are to develop democracy and human rights, climate aid and the rights and opportunities of women and girls. It also states in the budget regarding SRHR and the rights of hbtqi persons. Still, the member speaks as if this did not exist.

Furthermore, the previous government left this year and cut 18 percent of the aid for refugee reception in the country. Where is the credibility?

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that everyone following the debate can distinguish what is the principle, and that is the discussion we are having regarding the one percent issue.

Gudrun Brunegård herself said as recently as August 31 that one can rely on the Christian Democrats to stand up for the one-percent goal. It was a rather short period of trust on that, one must still state, because it clearly no longer applies. For us, it does. We will be very clear about returning to the one-percent goal. We will allocate resources. But Gudrun Brunegård now gets the chance to report to the Riksdag on whether a 50-percent reduction is what you can accept. Where is the limit?

Since it is clear that we in the opposition are asking many questions because this government has not reported the consequences of the savings. There is no preparatory basis. We had to convene in the committee to have a hearing that gave aid organizations and others the opportunity to present their perspectives. I have not seen any broad parliamentary investigation precede this shift, and now everyone is waiting for some regulatory letter.

Perhaps also Gudrun Brunegård, if she has insight into the government's work, can tell what the consequences will now be for civil society.

What Göran Hägglund, whom I truly respect and had a good cooperation with, initiated during his time in the alliance government was to make an agreement with civil society: This is how the rules of the game shall look. When we do things that affect civil society, we shall have common preparatory processes. We shall listen to each other. We shall be clear so that there is a long-term perspective in the state's guidelines to civil society.

Where is the long-term perspective? Where are Göran Hägglund's words in the Christian Democrats today, when they do not even listen to civil society but, after a night of negotiations with the Sweden Democrats, decide to cut aid and make a major restructuring?

The fundamental question returns. Is there any limit for Gudrun Brunegård?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Imagine that I could foresee that I would be asked that question.

Trust that the Christian Democrats stand up for the one percent goal! Trust that it would not have become a fixed level that lies only 1.4 billion below this year's budget if the Christian Democrats had not been involved and fought for the preservation of the one percent goal!

We didn't quite make it all the way. But we reached almost as far as the large Social Democratic party managed alone in its budget when it didn't have to negotiate with a single party. We land in the government proposal at 0.88 percent of GDP. You land as a large governing party at 0.91 percent. You only managed to get 0.03 percentage points higher than we did, so I still think these words go back. You can rely on the Christian Democrats.

We are fighting for effective aid, and civil society is a cornerstone in ensuring that this can be realized because we see that civil society has a completely different approach in its work. It builds on long-term contacts with the recipient countries. It has its sister organizations. There is a great loyalty between them that counters corruption and increases efficiency. It is something that I have seen with my own eyes and that I am convinced we will be able to further develop with the new government and the reform of aid that we have ahead of us.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! "We didn't quite make it all the way," was the answer that Gudrun Brunegård now gave. I have a firm feeling that we will hear that statement several times, after the next budget round and the budget round after that, because Kristdemokraterna is a small party in an alliance consisting of the large, dominating party Sverigedemokraterna, then Moderaterna, and then Liberalerna after that. How the balance of power looks and turns out we have been able to observe in a number of political priorities from this government, so I am sorry – I respect Gudrun Brunegård as a person, but I note that that statement will surely be repeated a number of times.

I can also only lament if Gudrun Brunegård and the Kristdemokraterna think that civil society is so important, and I know that very many Kristdemokrater do. How can one then make such a reorganization without even talking to the aid organizations? How can it be that the only possibility for the organizations to have a say in this process is for us in the opposition to convene a hearing, where the state secretary for the government party otherwise deigned to be for a short while and then left?

Why is there not greater trust or, for that matter, greater responsibility to follow up on what was previously promised, namely to listen to aid organizations and civil society? They make fantastic efforts and are now waiting anxiously, without oversight or dialogue, for a regulatory letter to be issued that will decide what their future will look like. What they know is that in these negotiations, a heavy party with great influence, Sverigedemokraterna, sits and says that 50 percent might be reasonable. Or as Oscar Sjöstedt said: I wouldn't cry if Sida were shut down.

I can understand the concern that exists. And I can also understand the disappointment of many Christian Democrats over the shift that has occurred today within KD.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Tomas Eneroth! It has been a long time since we had a budget that received full support in the Riksdag. We have that now, and it is positive for Sweden and good in many ways. The aid is, of course, part of this agreement.

For the Sweden Democrats, 0.5 percent is not what is important. It is not a principle. I have many times heard Tomas Eneroth say that it is the principle of 1 percent that is important. For the Sweden Democrats, it is not the principle that is important. It is what the means have for an effect that is important. That we set aside a certain sum of money every year is not what is important, but what is important is what those monies do. It is this that is central for the Sweden Democrats.

We are proud of the agreement we have now entered into. We are satisfied with this agreement and with the aid policy, with the framework that lies for the next three years. Then we will have a new negotiation and shall set new frameworks; then we will see what happens. But we are not dissatisfied, as Tomas Eneroth presents it.

People talk about the leadership jersey in the world. But there are also many who argue that the Social Democrats care more about how things look than about what actually makes a difference when it comes to the aid policy. We are redirecting the multilateral support to civil society. That is how we think.

Over the years, criticism has been directed at Swedish aid from legitimate sources. Why have the Social Democrats not done anything about the deficiencies that exist within Swedish aid? Why is the 1 percent principle more important than the fact that the resources and the tax funds that hardworking Swedes generate make a difference? I do not understand that.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that we have repeatedly every year, both in government and in opposition, both scrutinized, evaluated and streamlined the aid, but nevertheless dared to hold the moral conviction that 1 percent of the gross national product should be able to go to aid. If it had not been about the percentages for the Sweden Democrats but about the efficiency, they would probably have expressed themselves in a different way. I only read from SD's budget motion. There it says a 0.5 - 50 percent reduction. If you now wish to deviate from this, it is of course welcome - if the Sweden Democrats no longer want to see that halving of the aid which has been your slogan on streets and squares for a long time.

I can note that Alexander Christiansson says: We are satisfied with the Tidö Agreement and with the realignment of the aid policy. Yes, I know that you are satisfied. I know very many, both Moderates, Liberals, Christian Democrats, Center Party members and many others, who regret this, because they see that the government has backed down in favor of the Sweden Democrats, who have had very much pushed through in the Tidö Agreement.

The Sweden Democrats cannot be scrutinized in the same way as the government. We cannot submit a motion of no confidence against Jimmie Åkesson, interpellate Aron Emilsson, or have a KU investigation in the same way as for the ministers. But we can still ask questions, and one of those questions is: Which UN programs are to be shut down? Which part of UNDP's humanitarian efforts is to be removed now, or of the efforts made by Unifem or other organizations within the UN? What is it that is to be removed from the core support? Can Alexander Christiansson, whom I assume now is present at the negotiations regarding the regulatory letter, speak about what is to be removed so that we can find out?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! We must have a little patience - it might be possible to interpellate even the Sweden Democrats in the future. At least that is what we must hope for.

There are things that need to be cut back. UNRWA is, for example, an organization that, we believe, has major problems with its legitimacy. Both antisemitism and other things are occurring there, according to countless reports. There is other things as well. That is also why this needs to be evaluated and analyzed thoroughly.

I listened to the exchanges with Magdalena Thuresson and Gudrun Brunegård earlier. Much reference is made to the lack of analysis and impact assessment linked to the budget we are now presenting. I find it interesting given that precisely evaluations and underlying data were conspicuously absent when the one percent goal was pushed through just over 50 years ago. What was Tomas Eneroth's party's "just 1 percent" actually based on? What was the basis? What is the empirical and scientific evidence that just 1 percent is what matters and that it is then that we succeed? It would be interesting to hear.

Then there is something else I would like to hear. Mikael Damberg went out in a newspaper and wrote a debate article about the Tidö Agreement and aid. He expressed it literally as follows: It is a slaughter of Swedish aid that is happening right now. As Gudrun Brunegård also pointed out, it is now about 0.88 percent of GNI. Not because I want to stick to these percentages, but because the Social Democrats are so obsessed with percentage targets, I must still adhere to them. This budget therefore means 0.88 percent. The Social Democrats are putting 0.91 percent; that is therefore 2.5 billion more than the government. Is "slaughter" a good definition to use when expressing oneself on these very important issues?

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! Here we received a proposal: UNRWA. It will be interesting to see the Sweden Democrats' list of additional savings proposals regarding the UN. What does the list of things to be removed look like ahead of the Ministry of Finance's negotiations? I won't cry if Sida were to be abolished, said Oscar Sjöstedt. One can sense what the reform list looks like, which the Sweden Democrats first got through in principle during the Tidö Agreement negotiations and which will now become a reality when the regulatory letters are to be discussed.

I just think it is sad that those who are affected – aid organizations, people in other countries out in the world, and the UN system – do not find out. It is something that is discussed in closed rooms, without transparency or oversight, and without even making use of the knowledge and expertise that exists within Biståndssverige.

The question I have back to Alexander Christiansson in this situation is: If one now wants more effective measures, would it not be a point to take advantage of all those who have worked with the aid? I have asked about that matter previously. There is solid competence here. In what way can civil society become more effective?

I believe that the Sweden Democrats, together with the other parties, will be held accountable. Out there, there are very many people who are wondering what you intend to do.

Back to the question of percentages here or there. It was actually the Sweden Democrats who said that they want to halve it. Can we get the empirical basis for this? We can certainly go back to the one percent discussion. 50 years ago, I was not quite politically engaged, I must honestly admit. But I want to imagine that in a world of war, injustices, and great famine catastrophes – I can imagine it was Biafra or something else at that time – the idea was that we could still, out of humanity, provide a hundredth. We are still one of the world's richest countries. Since then, the aid, with this as a starting point, has developed to become one of the world's most effective, contributing to major humanitarian efforts worldwide. That is something I am proud of.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

We are now debating the budget for expenditure area 7 International aid. Sweden is a country that has for a long time allocated large resources to aid, in fact, uniquely large resources. In 2020, Sweden, in relation to the size of our economy, was the world's largest aid donor. But also in terms of absolute figures, Sweden was a very large aid donor. In absolute figures, we were the sixth largest aid donor in the world that year, despite the fact that we are hardly the sixth largest economy in the world.

Voices are now being heard, not least from the Social Democrats, claiming that Sweden would in some way be taking off the leader's jersey regarding global engagement. This is completely wrong, Mr. Speaker. Sweden's global engagement is very large, and when it comes to the aid, which we are debating now, the government stands for an increase in ambition. We want the aid to have result targets, not disbursement targets.

What the government is doing now is to change the budgeting principle for aid. It is not reasonable to manage the aid in the way it has been done previously: that the aid automatically increases while one turns and twists all other expenditure areas. It is also not reasonable to treat the aid with the volatility previous governments had, with sudden and very large deductions from the aid.

Mr. Speaker! The one percent target led to many problems. It led to the aid being characterized by precisely a disbursement target. This has been shown, among other things, in the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Sida's guarantee activities. There, it was written that there was a tension between reaching disbursement targets and mobilizing capital through guarantees. It was further written that several employees and those responsible for strategy at Sida believed that there was greater pressure to pay out aid funds than to mobilize capital.

This is not how one can treat the taxpayers' money. Therefore, a majority in the committee welcomes that the government is now changing the budgeting principle for aid. Instead, the aid is now provided with a three-year budget framework of 56 billion per year as well as a cap of 8 percent for asylum-related deductions. We are moving away from payment targets and focusing on content. Looking at crowns and öre, I can otherwise state that aid is increasing in the coming years, considering how much money has been spent on international aid over the last three years and how much money will be spent over the next three years. But we no longer accept an arrangement where the aid, without assessment against other needs in the budget, increases automatically year after year.

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased that the government has signaled a reform agenda with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency for aid. Aid is an important foreign policy tool to safeguard Swedish interests and meet the challenges we face. I will now state which areas the government in its budget signals that it will prioritize.

One of them is a separate strategy for Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself against Russia's illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. They are fighting for the freedom and security order of all of Europe. They are fighting for our freedom. The Ukrainian people are heroes, and we stand on your side. In the coming years, it is therefore completely obvious that the largest recipient country for Swedish aid will be Ukraine. But our support is greater than what fits within the budget for expenditure area 7. Sweden will continue to support Ukraine politically, militarily and humanitarily and contribute to the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! The Government notes in its budget that market economy and trade are necessary for countries to move from poverty to prosperity. This is something that we Moderates have long pushed for. We have noted that the long-term goal for aid should be to be able to move from aid to trade. Therefore, it is very good that the synergies between development policy and trade policy are to be strengthened, for example through an expanded guarantee framework. If we are to reach all the high-level goals in Agenda 2030, economic growth is needed. Even in the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine, trade will of course play a decisive role.

Mr. Speaker! The humanitarian needs in the world are increasing, and they have been exacerbated by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Sweden shall play an active role in many of the world's humanitarian crises, such as in Ukraine but also in Afghanistan and on the Horn of Africa. Given that the humanitarian needs in the world are so great, the government will increase the humanitarian aid, i.e., the disaster relief. It is about medicine, food, blankets and water for people in absolute distress. Humanitarian aid is about preventing death and alleviating suffering. We have a humanitarian responsibility to do what we can to help the most vulnerable people in the many humanitarian crises around the world.

Mr. Speaker! In this budget, the Government opens up for the aid to be conditional. This concerns, among other things, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Against the background of the negative democratic developments in many countries, the Government intends to set clear requirements that Sweden's partner countries shall live up to the principles of the rule of law and human rights. Support for organizations that work for democracy and human rights shall be prioritized, and civil society's space to operate shall be a focus area.

Let me say the completely obvious, which unfortunately is not obvious in large parts of the world: Girls' and women's rights are human rights. Girls' and women's full enjoyment of human rights shall be prioritized. SRHR, girls' education and measures that can strengthen girls' and women's economic empowerment are prioritized. A special focus is also made on measures to create conditions for free elections. The Government also intends to condition parts of the aid in order to ensure that recipient countries take responsibility for their citizens in matters concerning return.

Mr. Speaker! The Government notes in the budget that a well-functioning multilateral system with the UN as its hub is even more important in a restless world. Core support shall be focused more strategically. Aid channeled through multilateral organizations shall be focused on humanitarian aid, support for refugees, children's rights and the government's priorities, for example, the climate.

Climate change affects many developing countries. It contributes to poverty, insecure food supply, and forced displacement. Climate change also has security policy effects. In this budget, it is stated that climate aid shall be increased. The ambition is that the aid shall contribute to emission reduction, transition to fossil-free energy, and energy efficiency. Here, the multilateral development banks and the global environmental and climate funds will be important actors. Also in the health sector, for example to increase vaccination coverage in the world, reduce the risks for future pandemics, and strengthen the work against antibiotic resistance, multilateral actors will have a decisive role.

In addition to the UN system, the EU is naturally an important channel for Swedish aid. During Sweden's presidency, which begins on January 1, the government will work to strengthen the EU's role as a global actor.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by stating that we live in a restless time where the needs in the world are very great, now also in our immediate vicinity. Therefore, the government prioritizes in the budget for 2023 to allocate 56 billion to alleviate distress, prevent death, and support democracy and peaceful and sustainable development in the world. Aid will increase over the next three years. But we no longer accept an order where aid is increased automatically without consideration of other needs in the budget.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! We see now how the need for assistance is greater than ever. Poverty is increasing, and the hunger catastrophe is a fact. Women, girls, and children have been hit particularly hard. One example is the Horn of Africa, which now faces the worst hunger crisis in 40 years, and in Somalia alone, a child is admitted every minute for treatment of malnutrition.

More children than ever before are in flight. The democratic space is shrinking in the world. Equality has regressed during the pandemic. Women have lost their jobs to a greater extent, violence against women has increased, and more women have fallen into poverty. Girls' access to education has decreased while female genital mutilation and child marriage have increased. Support, especially for women, girls, and children, needs to increase, not decrease.

In the government declaration, a prioritization of "democracy assistance to human rights defenders and democracy activists; expanded and streamlined climate aid as well as women's and girls' rights and opportunities" as well as increased support to civil society was promised.

I become concerned when signals come from various sources that the government plans to phase out important strategies. These are global strategies that pool efforts for equality, health, sexual and reproductive rights, clean water and sanitation, education, as well as support for human rights and women's rights organizations in places where people live in extreme vulnerability, for example in Guatemala and Myanmar. But even the large cuts at the UN are, of course, worrying.

Will the Moderates ensure that aid to women and children as well as democracy and human rights organizations is protected and not cut?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question!

In my speech and in the government's budget, the government's priorities are clearly stated. I mentioned girls' and women's full enjoyment of human rights, civil society's opportunity to operate, and also a special initiative for free elections. Political priorities within aid are therefore democracy, human rights, the principles of the rule of law, and girls' and women's full enjoyment of human rights.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds good, but when one is reached by signals that there will be large cuts and phasing out of important strategies concerning equality and the most vulnerable women's organizations in, for example, Guatemala and Myanmar, one becomes deeply concerned.

I received no clear answer on whether there is an intention to cut aid to women and girls and to democracy and women's rights activists around the world or if there is an intention to keep the aid at the same level. Otherwise, it is another promise that the government is not living up to, and those who pay the highest price are women, girls, and children in the world.

The major restructuring of aid that is now taking place is being done without any real analysis based on facts, experience, and a solid impact assessment, not least a child impact assessment. Even Eba, the independent expert group for aid analysis, points out in an article in Altinget on September 9 that major restructurings of aid must be investigated. Why do you not want to conduct a proper analysis of the restructuring of aid, Magdalena Thuresson?

It is least said remarkable not to involve neither the Riksdag, the actors or the recipients of the aid in this. The reallocation can have very large consequences if one does not conduct any actual analysis or engage in a dialogue with those who receive the aid.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The consequences of what the government is doing now, that is, moving away from payment targets and focusing on content, is that we can move away from the incredible fixation on getting rid of the "right" amount of money. Then we can focus on that what we do is effective and leads to results and have a discussion about what we actually should do with our aid.

The strategies are ongoing. Some expire at the turn of the year, and others have longer terms. All strategies have long terms, but some expire now and others in coming years. This is subject to ongoing preparation and review. There are both national strategies, thematic strategies, and strategies in support of multilateral organizations, and it is possible that they can be organized in a different way.

Regarding content, both democracy, the principles of the rule of law and human rights are a political priority, just as the full enjoyment of human rights by women and girls.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates often say that they have higher ambitions for Swedish aid, and we are very curious about this.

Magdalena Thuresson took up [the point] in her speech and made it sound as if those of us who are concerned that the one percent goal is now being abandoned mean that it is only about wasting money. I want to strongly oppose this. It is such claims that make the debate a bit sad. Of course, it is the content that is crucial, and this is what we have usually debated here in this chamber – what should be included and what the goals should be. We have discussed it, and it has been discussed with civil society.

It is regrettable that the Moderates are abandoning the principle of the one percent goal. It is not just about a sum that is to be filled with whatever, it is about a principle, namely stable funding that is linked to our prosperity development.

It is even more regrettable that there now appears to be an enormous restructuring of Swedish aid taking place behind closed doors at the Government Offices. Member Lotta Johnsson Fornarve asked about this, but I did not hear any answer given. Therefore, it is good that I also get to ask the question.

The Moderates have previously been a serious party and usually claim that entered agreements should be honored, even if some have been betrayed during the mandate period. There is a written agreement which states that the government undertakes to conduct a dialogue with and inform relevant civil society organizations well in advance about major changes, but this is now chosen to be disregarded. Why is it being done? Why is there not a process in the usual order when major decisions regarding changes are made?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying a few words about development. It is not aid first and foremost that creates sustainable development and prosperity, but it is economic growth and trade. Aid can play a very important role for people in absolute need and create conditions for economic growth, but what creates development is not first and foremost aid but economic growth and trade. Therefore, it is important to create greater synergies between trade policy and development policy, so that it can lead to development.

The one percent goal has led to a pressure to spend the "right" amount of money. This has been shown in reports from Eba. In my speech, I referred to the National Audit Office's review of the guarantee instrument, and if I don't remember entirely incorrectly, Janine Alm Ericson was the State Secretary at UD with responsibility for aid issues when the review came. There it was stated that the disbursement goal leads to a tension between reaching the disbursement goal and mobilizing capital via guarantees, and that several employees felt a greater pressure to pay out aid funds than to mobilize capital. Do Janine Alm Ericson and Miljöpartiet think this is a wise way to handle the taxpayers' money and that it is effective aid?

Regarding the guarantee instrument, Sida says that a krona of aid mobilizes other capital and other capital flows that otherwise would not have come. A krona of aid can therefore generate a capital flow of 7 kronor and can thus create much more. It is a fantastically efficient aid that we should use much more, but which the National Audit Office noted is not used sufficiently because there is a pressure to pay out money.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The guarantee instrument is incredibly good. It has been under construction for some time now, and through that, there may have been more competence and focus on actually living up to one's commitments - as this Riksdag has done regarding Sida. But we also raised the guarantee commitments during our time because we saw exactly the development that Magdalena Thuresson is talking about.

So, regarding this matter of trade leading to development. Within classic Swedish aid, one already looks at entire chains and processes for increased fair trade, within countries and between countries. We can only hope that it is not this that the Moderaterna are now striking out in their eagerness to increase efficiency and achieve higher ambitions. And that is exactly what I mean: If one does not even know that these things exist in Swedish aid, it is all too easy to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Otherwise, I think it sounds very good with higher ambitions. We also have higher ambitions with Swedish aid. We must have that, given how the world looks. But we wonder what an agenda for reform of the aid should mean, with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. How is it to differ from today's aid, which is nevertheless designated as one of the world's best and which already has high ambitions and is long-term, transparent, and to the highest degree efficient?

Why then are we not allowed to be involved in improving it? Magdalena Thuresson has still not answered this, even though both I and Lotta Johnsson Fornarve have asked the question. Why do you not let civil society organizations with their knowledge and the Riksdag with its long experience of governing aid be involved in working out this new one, as was done the last time a major reorganization was to take place? What are you afraid of?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Janine Alm Ericson asks what should be done for long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. In the budget, there is a section that deals with the policy's direction, and there one can read, among other things, that based on, among other things, the joint reports from the National Audit Office and the Swedish Agency for Public Management and several Riksrevision audits, it is intended to look at how one can simplify, clarify, and streamline both the management and the follow-up of the aid. That is one example.

It is very pleasing if the Green Party also wants to see an increase in ambition for aid and move away from only focusing on how much money we spend and actually ensure what result we get.

The problem with the debate surrounding the one percent issue is that every year in December we only discuss how much money we are going to spend next year: Is it 0.91 that the Social Democrats put forward, or is it 0.88 that the government puts forward? Very rarely do we stop and think: What have we done over the last five years? What results have we achieved? How much money have we spent, and what has it led to? There is never time for that discussion; it is very rarely conducted, because one is so focused on the question of exactly what proportion of bni we should spend next year. It is unworthy of the taxpayers' money and this expenditure area to treat the aid in that way. I think it would be very good if the Green Party could also let go of the heat surrounding exactly what proportion of bni we should spend.

Janine Alm Ericson said here that Miljöpartiet also stands for an increase in ambition. In that case, I would like to ask the same question that I asked Tomas Eneroth in a previous exchange of remarks: Which reforms – not linked to the share of GNI – does Miljöpartiet propose to improve and streamline the aid?

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Thuresson, for a good and engaged contribution, I would first like to say.

I completely agree that we have a need to make reforms within aid. Efficiency is always good, leadership should be discussed, and synergies are very interesting. Then there are other things where I absolutely do not agree.

I have, above all, two questions. One of the questions has also been touched upon by the previous speaker. It concerns the process, that is, the transparency and the dialogue, i.e., before the decisions are made. I still feel a bit worried, and very many share my concern: What is it that makes it so that the Riksdag, civil society, and recipients are not allowed to be part of the process when this is now being redone? Why does it have to go so fast?

I believe that one will have to swallow it in the end, because even though change always creates a certain anxiety, transparency and dialogue actually tend to increase security.

Then we have the goal. There, everyone in the committee agrees that we stand firm on the goal of poverty reduction and democracy development. That is good. It is also said that the government stands behind this. But I cannot make this add up. How does this actually align with the migration policy? And how does it align with the talk about export promotion and that it should benefit Sweden? Because even though I agree with Magdalena Thuresson on the importance of trade and that the business sector gets a larger role in this, I wonder about precisely the approach that it should be export-promoting for Sweden instead of starting from the recipient's perspective – how does this align?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the kind words at the beginning of the speech and for the good questions.

When it comes to the process, there was actually no big difference in this process compared to how previous processes have been. The aid is steered through the budget that we are adopting now and through strategies and regulatory letters. The big difference is that we are leaving exactly the focus on bni and providing it with a three-year budget framework. Several parties have campaigned on this. The Moderates have stood at this rostrum and pleaded for that model for a long time. We won the election, and therefore there will be a different direction for the aid. But the budget process itself does not differ from previous years, rather the aid is steered through strategies and regulatory letters.

When it comes to the goal for expenditure area 7, it is to contribute to better living conditions for people in poverty and oppression. It is a completely unanimous committee that stands behind that goal for the expenditure area.

Then Anna Lasses asks how that adds up. Well, for example, by the government intending to be able to review aid to countries that, for example, do not accept their own citizens who have been deported from Sweden. And then I just want to say that there is no conflict. We do not have aid to all the world's countries. We do not have to have aid to all the world's countries. In all countries where we have aid, we also do not have aid to all of the government's priorities, rather it looks different. We do not give aid to all countries, and we do not give aid to exactly everything in all countries. If one is not prepared to review the aid. I understand that my speaking time is over, so I must return, Mr. Speaker.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the bni-level specifically, I leave that there. We have different views on it, and I think that is fine.

But I want to return to the process, because it is not actually about the process before the budget itself, but these major changes. If one is now very keen on obtaining a new, efficient, and good aid work, why does one not involve them? Why does one not take the time and review how we can do this as well as possible? I still believe that there are quite a few things where we could reach an agreement.

When it comes to migration policy, I am thinking a bit. I also understand that one cannot give everything to everyone; I fully comprehend that. But now we have this very strict migration policy, where one more or less wants to deter people from coming here, together with the goals of return in the aid. How does this go together with the aid's objective to focus on the recipient? I can't quite make that fit together; I must admit that.

I also believe that it might mostly be a shot in the air, because we do not provide support to so many authoritarian states. It feels more like this is something we say but that does not yield much.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the process, the aid is, as stated, managed via regulatory letters and strategies. It is clear that preparation takes place and that there is, and will continue to be, dialogue with many actors when, for example, a strategy that is expiring is being reviewed.

Regarding the goal for the expenditure area, as has been said, there is no conflict. What there is a conflict about, however, is Swedish migration policy. I must state, Mr. Speaker, that if one is not even prepared to look at this tool, one also does not see the major problems Sweden faces today regarding, for example, a growing shadow society and that a no is not always a no.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the contribution from Magdalena Thuresson! First and foremost, it concerns the percentage. One must not set a percentage target such that one only spends money, and we cannot set a payout target, says Magdalena Thuresson.

There may be a point to her being a bit cautious about this, given the two percent target that exists due to the NATO membership regarding defense spending. There can sometimes be a point in setting percentage targets to commit long-term to the obligations one is to make. But the Moderaterna may here be signaling that they also want to move away from this two percent target. In that case, I believe we have a different political debate.

I intend to focus on what concerns the preparation process and how one handles civil society. In the agreement that I mentioned in my speech, the government commits to working together with civil society and preparing it. As we have heard from several speakers here, civil society is an important part of Swedish aid. From a part of the government basis, it has been said that it is even an increasingly important part. It states in the agreement that one shall inform relevant civil society organizations in good time about planned or ongoing processes of greater importance within Swedish development cooperation. I note that this agreement is not being followed. Is that a concern?

Since I know that many of the civil society organizations are listening, I will also give Magdalena Thuresson an opportunity to describe how this efficiency measure can be applied to civil society. In what way is Diakonia to become more efficient in its aid? How is Olof Palmecentret, Act Svenska Kyrkan, or Plan to become so? Which efficiency measures are it that shall govern their efforts moving forward? What is the point of not involving them at an early stage in the process? And what is perhaps the fundamental question: When will the civil society organizations be involved? I think it is also a rather fundamental democratic aspect that this government has completely missed.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by responding to the comparison between 2 percent for defense and 1 percent for aid. I am against spending targets for defense as well. It is our defense capability that is the most important. We usually speak of the equivalent of 2 percent. Given the developments in our global environment in the future, it may very well be that more resources for defense will be needed. No one would ever think of treating defense in the irresponsible way that aid has been treated, with large payments at the end of the year just to reach the "correct" amount of spent money. It is our defense capability that is what is important.

One can also observe that defense is the state's absolute core task. I just want that to be said.

Civil society actors have a completely decisive role in aid. This government and the budget that a majority in the committee has backed intend to strengthen civil society's role in aid precisely because we care about aid. We care about what is being done and how it is being done. We care about aid becoming good. We care, therefore, about the content, not just the money. The previous government has treated core funding as an effective way to just reach the disbursement goal. Core funding is important, but it is also an effective way to quickly get rid of a lot of money.

We care about the content. Therefore, we will focus the core support more strategically and give civil society actors a larger role in the aid.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker and Magdalena Thuresson! I note that I did not receive any answer to the questions. Now there is a chance to do so.

In what way is civil society to be involved in the work now? How is it to conduct its work more efficiently? Which efficiency measures do you intend to apply? Is it more girls who receive support and help in vulnerable situations, or is it increased humanitarian aid calculated based on the population?

I find it a bit interesting, because you are happy to throw around terms like more effective aid, even though Swedish aid has been evaluated by both the right and the left and is perceived as one of the world's most effective. Can you clarify? Can we get an answer?

Since civil society has not been involved and since the agreement that the alliance government concluded with civil society has been disregarded, perhaps it is time to provide a statement here and now before we make decisions in the Swedish Riksdag. Since no one from the government intends to come to the chamber debate, it may be a point that some representative from the majority provides us with a preparatory basis before the vote in the chamber. Tell us which requirements shall be placed on civil society! Or is it to be as it will be? Is it so careless that government power is handled these days?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! This government does not intend to treat civil society actors as harshly as the previous government did with sudden large deductions. The previous government announced 9 billion during the spring - something that would hit civil society actors very hard.

Madam Speaker! I actually do not understand Tomas Eneroth's question. We are providing long-term conditions for the aid. Civil society actors will have a decisive role. We have announced a budget framework of 56 billion over three years and also a ceiling for asylum-related deductions. We have also announced that civil society actors shall have a larger role.

Civil society actors will have an important role in this. A close dialogue will be maintained, and they will be completely decisive implementers of Swedish aid. We care about what is being done and how it is being done, and not just that the "right" amount of money is spent.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a wealthy country that can afford both strong aid and a well-developed welfare state. It is entirely possible to achieve if the right priorities are made and if we take a collective responsibility, but in that case, it is not possible to prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners.

The government's budget represents a departure from a long tradition of Swedish aid policy. The established one percent target is abandoned and replaced with a target set in kronor and öre. In a first step, aid is frozen just above the previous level, but the forecast shows that it will quickly become a significant reduction in relation to GNI.

For the first time in decades, poverty in the world is increasing. During 2022 alone, the number of people in extreme poverty increased to 719 million, according to the World Bank. This means that 9.3 percent of the entire world's population lives in poverty.

A hunger catastrophe is currently unfolding in the world. According to the UN, 345 million people suffer from acute malnutrition, a figure that has doubled since 2019.

There are 46 million children who are in flight. Many live under completely inhuman conditions in refugee camps for a long time. The reason is a number of global crises - the climate crisis, the corona pandemic and a growing number of wars and conflicts.

To reduce aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are at their greatest means a blow to the people who are having the hardest time in the world. It is clear that the government has no ambitions for Sweden to continue taking responsibility for global development. The countries in the EU that in recent years have increased their aid with reference to Sweden will no longer be able to see Sweden as an example - something that would have been needed in a time when the collective aid is far from sufficient to meet the needs that exist.

It is obvious that we are facing a clear change of course regarding aid. In the Tidö Agreement, which the government negotiated with the Sweden Democrats, it is established that aid shall be used to achieve migration policy objectives. In other words, people shall be forced back to the place they fled from. It is a departure from the very basic principle of aid, which states that aid should benefit the recipient and not the donor.

The government also speaks of the aid being based on the possibility of benefiting Swedish trade and business. This orientation is an outdated, costly, and inefficient way to use aid. According to the OECD, aid that is tied to requirements to trade with companies in the donor country is 15-30 percent more expensive, and therefore the OECD has decided to phase out tied aid. Aid that is linked to export promotion work risks becoming less effective because actual needs in the partner countries are ignored. Based on the objectives of the aid, the aid should be based on the recipients' needs and perspectives, not on the possibility of benefiting Swedish business.

GPEDC is the global framework we have for working together on aid effectiveness. The four principles mean local ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships as well as transparency and joint accountability. The principles are based on decades of experience of what constitutes effective aid.

We know that long-term development aid is effective. Development aid is smart for preventing crises and conflicts. It is therefore worrying that the government now says it wants to prioritize humanitarian aid. Both humanitarian aid and development aid are important, but for real change, the aid must be long-term.

We have seen many examples of this; for example, Argentina now has a law that gives women the right to their own bodies and the right to have an abortion. That would never have happened without long-term support to various women's organizations in Argentina. Sweden has a long history of supporting people's movements in partner countries.

The democratic space is shrinking in the world. Equality has regressed during the pandemic. Women have lost their jobs to a greater extent, violence against women has increased, and more women have fallen into poverty. Girls' access to education has decreased while female genital mutilation and child marriage have increased.

Now, worrying signals are emerging that the government is about to phase out important strategies. These are global strategies that pool efforts for equality, health, sexual and reproductive rights, clean water and sanitation, as well as education and support for human rights and women's networking organizations for people living in extreme vulnerability, for example in Guatemala and Myanmar.

It looks like the government will have difficulty living up to the words in the government statement, where it promised continued prioritization of democracy assistance to human rights defenders and democracy activists, expanded and streamlined climate aid, as well as a focus on women's and girls' rights and opportunities.

Reducing support to the UN and cutting back on core funding, as the government has indicated, is also not effective aid. Core funding allows for a flexibility that is required in a changing world with escalating crises and conflicts, such as those in Ukraine and Afghanistan. The UN also plays an important coordinating role in the world, and a large part of the funds channeled through the UN go to support for women and SRHR. Strong core funding is not in contradiction to strong support for civil society; on the contrary, they are a prerequisite for one another.

It is the poorest part of the world that is hit hardest by the effects of the climate crisis. Climate goals must take precedence over short-term profit interests, and the wealthy part of the world must take its historical responsibility. To combine effective poverty reduction with ecological sustainability, investments are required in environmentally friendly and sustainable production of energy and food, as well as a transition to a more environmentally friendly transport and industrial sector. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to see a new additional climate aid.

Ukraine obviously needs to receive strong support from the rest of the world to rebuild the country. Sweden can play an important role here, but the needs are gigantic. It is estimated to cost 600-700 billion dollars, while the world's total aid amounts to less than 200 billion dollars. It is obvious that the world's countries must find other means than aid to assist Ukraine in their important work of rebuilding the country.

It is sometimes said, completely incorrectly, that aid is a black hole. Sweden today has a relatively good aid system that is both transparent and effective and which is seen as a model globally. At the same time, there is almost no focus on capital and tax flight as a black hole. This deprives countries of hundreds of billions of dollars every year in lost tax revenues. Action was needed here. We also need to introduce effective country-by-country reporting for multinational companies.

The change in direction regarding Swedish aid is being made without any analysis, dialogue, or proper evaluation whatsoever. The last time the aid was changed, a proper analysis was conducted, and the transition was preceded by a dialogue with both the Riksdag and aid donors on a broad front. Civil society, among other things, was involved. Now the government is abandoning both the one percent goal and an aid policy that is largely functioning without any dialogue whatsoever. It is remarkable, to say the least.

Sweden shall be a voice for solidarity, democracy and human rights in the world. In the Left Party's budget motion, we both restore the one percent goal and present proposals for additional climate aid covering 500 million kronor for year one and then scaled up to 1 billion kronor for the following years. We do this to counteract the effects of the climate crisis and contribute to a fairer, more democratic and equal world.

Since the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has given the budget policy a different direction than the Left Party desired, I abstain from taking a position on expenditure area 7. I refer instead to the Left Party's special statement.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for many years been a humanitarian superpower and a role model for the world's countries through our generous aid which goes towards fighting poverty and strengthening the fight for democracy and human freedoms and rights. We should be proud of that and further develop it.

In various evaluations, including those by OECD-DAC, Swedish aid has received criticism. It has become too fragmented, has many different goals and strategies, and is conveyed through many different organizations. This makes the aid less effective. It becomes harder to monitor and evaluate whether it actually produces the intended effect.

Several judges have also pointed out that Sweden as a nation has not taken advantage of the influence we could reasonably expect to demand in the UN system, given that we are one of the world's leading aid donors in relation to population size.

As a Christian Democrat, I am a strong advocate for generous and effective aid. As many know, I have my own experiences after four years of work as a nurse in a country in Africa. With a perspective of nearly forty years and continuous, almost daily, contacts with the country as well as insight into many other aid countries, I have seen both good and bad examples. There is a real need to reform aid so that it becomes even more effective and accurate.

We want every krona to reach where it does the most good to lift people out of poverty and provide knowledge and tools for development and self-sufficiency to individuals, but also to local communities and entire nations.

The government therefore highlights some thematic priorities: poverty reduction, 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 girls and women.

The government also wants to channel a larger share of the aid through civil society and focus the multilateral cooperation on organizations that have the designated thematic priorities as well as on humanitarian refugee aid and children's rights.

Let me say a few words about the civil society organizations. They have long-standing and deep-seated contacts with their sister organizations in the recipient country. This creates mutual trust and reduces the risk of corruption. Furthermore, they often have a streamlined administration, which means less money disappears along the way. There are organizations that pass on 87 percent of the collected funds to those in need.

Madam Speaker! I am proud that a Christian Democratic innovation is now included in the government's proposal. For the first time in history, a cap is set on deductions for refugee reception in Sweden. What happened in April this year when the Social Democrats suddenly withdrew 18 percent of the so-called aid limits was destructive. It affected civil society organizations with an average of 38 percent of their budgets during the current budget year - without warning. It made Sweden the largest recipient of Swedish aid. It is stomach-turning that it is precisely the Social Democrats who now call the government's reform a slaughter of the aid. The government's cap of 8 percent for deductions prevents anything comparable from being repeated.

The government also increases the state guarantees and provides a capital injection to Swedfund for, among other things, increased climate investments. Both Sida's guarantees and Swedfund's investment support have been shown in evaluations to yield very good effects by enabling investments to develop companies and make climate adaptations in developing countries.

All this is well in line with the Christian Democrats' aid policy program that was released this summer.

Developing trade on both a large and small scale is an important way to drive development. When, for example, female farmers get outlets for their products, research shows that the income primarily goes towards the children's education. They acquire school uniforms, pens, notebooks, and nutritious food for the children. The next step is often to improve their own home. They might replace the palm leaf roof with a tin roof that is more resistant to rain and storms.

When one has managed the basics and life's necessities, one may perhaps be able to afford to hire someone who then also gets a share of the increased prosperity, and in the next step, one may perhaps be able to acquire a means of transport so that one can transport one's crops to the market in the city instead and get an even greater return from one's work. In this way, ripples of goodness spread.

This can be compared to how the men act. If they get a small extra income, it is unfortunately often the case that it goes towards personal consumption of, for example, alcohol or perhaps prostitutes.

On one point, this agreement deviates from Christian Democratic policy. This concerns the one percent goal. We Christian Democrats still stand by the principle that it is a good principle to set aside a certain proportion of GNP for aid - 1 percent - given the great needs that exist in our world. Furthermore, those needs have increased due to the pandemic, the drought and famine in the Horn of Africa, and Russia's war in Ukraine.

But – and this is an important but – in the four-party agreement and in the budget, there is an exemplary long-term perspective in that the aid is frozen at the level of 56 billion kronor per year. This means a reduction of 1.4 billion kronor compared to this year's budget, but it remains fixed at that level for three years regardless of whether we enter a recession during the coming years. With the one percent target, the aid would in that case be reduced.

Combined with a cap for deductions of 8 percent, our proposal provides a long-term perspective and predictability that surpasses the Social Democrats'. They first removed 18 percent of the aid for refugee reception and then, in the autumn budget motion, themselves deviated from the one percent goal so that it would land at 0.91 percent, which is only a fraction higher than the government's 0.88 percent.

It is also important to emphasize that Sweden is still an international role model as a donor country. Only Luxembourg in the entire world surpasses Sweden in the share of GNI. Remember that when you hear the left-wing gang talk about a slaughtered aid budget! With the proposal the government has put forward, Sweden can become not only the most generous but also the most effective aid country.

With this, I move for the approval of the proposals in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree that the spending ceiling is good. It ensures stability and that one knows what the rules are.

When it comes to the one percent goal, it certainly pleases me that the Christian Democrats are sticking to it, but I must still ask where the limit is. We have heard, at least from the Sweden Democrats' side, that this is potentially a first step. What happens in the next step when one wants to go down to 0.5 percent? Will the Christian Democrats come along then, or will they say no? That is my one question.

The second question concerns the process. Why are civil society and the Riksdag not allowed to be involved when such major changes are now being made to the aid? And I am not talking about the money, but about the principles of how it is distributed, thought out, and how it should be worked with.

I agree with what Gudrun Brunegård said about the development of trade when it comes to specifically female farmers and education. It is truly one of the best ways to achieve development - not least economic development.

But this is very far from the goal of benefiting Swedish exports. I would wish that one instead focused on saying that one should involve the business community and work together, as that provides added value. Wouldn't that have been better than saying that one should benefit Swedish exports?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the wise questions!

I believe just the deduction ceiling will be completely decisive going forward in order to contribute to the whole of the budget. It is an important negotiating victory for us Kristdemokrater which partly makes it so that we accept that we do not quite achieve the one percent goal this year. But the Kristdemokrater's ambition is, of course, to be able to raise it in upcoming negotiations.

We have sketched out a reform of the aid in our aid policy program, and many of the writings are included almost verbatim in the government's budget. Given the efficiency that can be achieved, it is my hope that our partners in the government base will see that every krona will be put to good use. Then, given the incredible needs that exist all around the world, it can be justified to raise it to 1 percent and have this as a commitment, which we want.

When it comes to the process, I believe we must have respect for the fact that very little time has passed since the government took office. Not all details can be in place. A rather accelerated process is currently underway so that what is possible in the current situation can be completed in time.

I do, however, assume that civil society will be involved and that there will be a dialogue with us in the committee, and also in the Riksdag, further ahead when the whole thing becomes more established in terms of work.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I hope that the Christian Democrats can really hold on to this and try to push it up so that it does not fall further.

I agree that it has been an extremely forced process. It is precisely this that is the problem when large changes are made and a great deal of anxiety is created. In that case, it is even more important that everyone feels that they are involved and that they can contribute the knowledge they have. It is also easier then to avoid making big mistakes so that one then has to tear things up and do them over again.

I think it is unfortunate that it has not been said: Stop and hold - we cannot do it this quickly! This process, with the agreement to involve civil society that lies at the bottom, is very important. I hope that the Christian Democrats agree with this and that the party monitors it and ensures that it is something that is taken with at least in the further process.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Anna Lasses and everyone else can trust that the Christian Democrats will continue to hold firm. Aid is an incredibly important part of the Christian Democrats' ideological foundation. Solidarity with fellow human beings who have greater needs than we do is one of the Christian Democrats' basic principles, so the Christian Democrats will truly hold firm on this – I can promise that.

I agree that everyone should be involved in the process, and I assume that one will be invited to be involved in the future. I would, however, like to emphasize that the measures being taken now, and the direction that we have outlined in the Christian Democratic aid policy report, are not something that has been done haphazardly; rather, we have based this on research reports and evaluations from OECD-DAC, IDA, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, and so on. We propose reforms that the governing parties have accepted, for example, regarding guarantees, Swedfund, and allowing a larger proportion to go through civil society.

I have good hope that our coalition partners will continue to listen to us. We have a deep and long-standing commitment to aid issues. We also have a great trust in these issues, and this is, of course, something we are keen to maintain, nurture, and further develop.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the speech!

There was much that Gudrun Brunegård presented that I can agree with. I think it is good that the deductions of the aid have been reduced, even though I would have preferred to have seen that no deductions had been made at all. I believe that aid should be used for aid and not for other things.

We see now that the need for aid is greater than ever. Poverty is increasing. The hunger catastrophe is a fact. Girls, women, and children have been hit particularly hard. Equality is decreasing again, and violence against women is increasing. There are, to say the least, great needs within aid, not least when it comes to democracy and rights aid.

Both the Liberals and the Christian Democrats promised before the election to only support a budget where 1 percent of the GNP goes to aid. That this promise is now being thrown overboard, I believe, is a betrayal both of the voters and of the millions of people in the world who are in need of international aid.

How do you explain this betrayal to the voters? I believe that cutting aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are at their greatest is not reasonable. I would like to have an answer on how you reason regarding the cuts to aid.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the praise! It is very important that we have this dialogue. We do live in an imperfect world, and this also applies to politics.

We both have high ambitions, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, but for us to have our ambitions realized, we unfortunately need to cooperate with others because neither Vänsterpartiet nor Kristdemokraterna has 51 percent of the voter support. That requires negotiation. You are to negotiate with a party that is prepared to withdraw 38 percent of the aid to civil society organizations in the middle of an ongoing budget year, so perhaps we should balance that here.

Despite the fact that we in Kristdemokraterna cooperate with two parties that would have wanted to lower the aid further, we have succeeded in pushing through crucial reform proposals which entail a maintained high aid of 0.88 percent of GNI and a cap on deductions.

When it comes to the deduction ceiling, or deductions in general, I want to remind that this is something that OECD-DAC approves. We are to equate refugee reception in our own countries with the refugee reception that many aid countries have. This is the basis for why the deductions exist.

I agree with Lotta Johnsson Fornarve - I would have preferred to see that it had been zero in the calculations. But with a cap of 8 percent, we are 10 percentage points better off than what the Social Democrats achieved in April this year when they lowered by 18 percent.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for the answer.

I agree, as I have said, that it is important that we reduce the deductions, but Vänsterpartiet would have preferred that no deductions had been made at all.

Gudrun Brunegård said that one is reducing the aid marginally, but in the long run, it will indeed become a fairly substantial reduction of the aid as one freezes the aid in kronor and öre. In the long run, this will mean fairly substantial cuts to the aid; that is how it is.

I must say that I think it is a betrayal of your voters that you did not stand up for the one percent goal, which you clearly and distinctly said you would do during the election campaign. It is the most vulnerable in the world who are affected by this betrayal.

I wonder where you actually want to cut in the aid. Is it in the support for girls' education, which has declined sharply after the pandemic? Is it in the support to prevent violence against women and children and to reduce female genital mutilation? Is it in the support for human rights and democracy activists all around the world? Where are you going to cut?

You say that civil society is important and place this somewhat in opposition to the UN and core funding. I think it is wrong to do this, because both are needed. Civil society also says that they regret that the aid to the multilateral organizations and the core funding is decreasing, because they are dependent on each other. The core funding has been incredibly important during the pandemic to be able to quickly pivot, deploy funds, and be flexible. Both of these supports are very important and are not in opposition at all. I would like to hear some comments on this from Gudrun Brunegård.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the support for a ceiling for deductions. I hope that you can influence your coalition parties regarding the introduction of such a ceiling so that we can avoid being subjected to such brutal shifts as those that occurred earlier this year.

When it comes to the concern that aid will decrease, it is not about any brutal figures. Based on the forecast for GNI growth, 2023's aid is 0.88 percent of this year's, a figure that has been repeated several times today. For 2024, it is estimated to be 0.86 percent and the year after at 0.82 percent. These are, after all, still marginal sums; it is thousandths of a percent.

During this time, an efficiency gain will occur so that every krona will hit even more accurately than it does today.

It is not about us cutting aid to the UN organizations and others that receive core funding, but rather that a larger proportion should be channeled through civil society. Here we must look at who does this best. It may be Doctor Mukwege in eastern Congo who is best at standing up for women's rights and countering the destabilization that armed groups cause at the expense of others. In that case, it is he who should receive the money and not another organization.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for both the speech and the previous answers.

You have been forced to abandon the one percent goal in negotiations. You have explained this honestly and straightforwardly, but it is nevertheless regrettable. It is a pity that you could not hold out, but it is good that you express the ambition to return there.

What is also sad is that you stand behind the new language that the Moderaterna and the Minister for Development engage in when it comes to efficiency and transparency. Here, we simply get no answers.

In addition to the Christian Democrats having stood up for the one percent goal and continuing to do so, the Christian Democrats also want to give civil society a large space. I heard Gudrun Brunegård say that it is going a bit fast now but that civil society will also be involved later in the major changes being made. But it is now that new proposals are being developed and the Government Offices are reworking the entire policy for international development cooperation and aid. It would be good if those who have knowledge, competence, and experience participated in this work.

How can the Christian Democrats agree to make such a large transformation, as we fear it will become, without civil society being involved from the beginning?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Janine Alm Ericson for an engaged contribution. Since I need to go to another meeting after this debate, I would like to take the opportunity to send along the reminder I gave to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve. Even Miljöpartiet has a high tail-end, but for you also to be capable of carrying out the increase in aid that you want to do, you are dependent on cooperating with others. The party you have cooperated with previously in a government position carried out the historically most brutal slaughter of aid, with 18 percent of the aid in total and 38 percent that directly affected civil society organizations. Keep this in mind moving forward.

We have pointed out a direction. We shall fight poverty and meet humanitarian needs. We shall support children's rights and civil society. We shall fight for democracy and human rights and increase climate aid. We shall stand up for women's and girls' rights and opportunities, and the conditions and rights of SRHI and hbtqi persons. All of this is included in the budget, and with this direction, negotiations will naturally take place ahead. For example, my colleague will meet the Minister for Development Aid today, so discussions are ongoing.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for the cooperation regarding negotiations. A small party can always need that.

The budget is decreasing, and the government has chosen to deviate from the one percent goal. But it is perhaps not the sum itself that is most worrying, as it will well affect more in the long run. Now it is rather the government's stated ambition to allocate a large part of the aid money to Ukraine. We think that Ukraine should receive as much support and help as we can ever give, but we have not seen the financing and do not know how much else this focus on Ukraine will crowd out.

Negotiations are ongoing, and we wouldn't have expected anything else. But I want to ask Gudrun Brunegård: What are the Christian Democrats' starting points in the negotiations that are ongoing? Gudrun Brunegård mentions many good things that it is important to maintain in the aid. But we know at the same time that it will be necessary to cut back. What are the Christian Democrats prepared to cut back on? One cannot maintain the same level of ambition in all these parts. Will there be a cut in climate aid, on women's and girls' rights, or on democracy support? I want to hear how the Christian Democrats prioritize in these difficult issues.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson for new questions that are important to discuss.

Let me continue to develop what I did not quite have time for in a previous exchange regarding efficiencies. We have very many different organizations, both the UN's core support organizations and other large organizations as well as civil society organizations, which work with one and the same thing. In that case, one may need to review which ones do it in the most efficient way. This is what I mean by efficiency. If one focuses the resources on this, one can achieve equally good or even better effects by cooperating with fewer organizations. OECD-DAC and also EWA have pointed out that Sweden's aid over the years has drifted away and been spread out over too many different organizations and focus areas, which makes it inefficient.

It is this type of focus and streamlining that needs to be done, and then one also frees up funds to strengthen other areas, for example Ukraine, which at the moment needs a lot of support and which is already one of Sweden's primary recipient countries of aid.

In this discussion, we must also remember that Sweden provides aid through the EU. We have not talked so much about that part yet, but there we have a great collective force that we Christian Democrats believe Sweden needs to utilize. We need to influence other countries within the EU, both when it comes to aid globally and not least when it comes to Ukraine.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! I wanted first and foremost to say something about the settlement and DAC. I believe it is important for those who follow the debate and hear Gudrun Brunegård to still remember what the situation looked like. We received signals of 250,000-300,000 refugees from Ukraine to Sweden alone. These were forecasts made based on the war situation at that time. It was a matter of quickly creating the conditions to meet this, and we did that by following the DAC criteria, the regulations that actually exist.

Then it turned out that it was not needed, and the resources were then returned. But what differs when it comes to the challenge for all parties in the previous government constellation is that we did not hesitate for a second when it comes to the one percent goal. That is, however, the case for the constellation that the Christian Democrats are now part of.

I can think that it is commendable and even positive that Gudrun Brunegård says here that one wishes to be able to increase aid. But here there are several parties whose explicit goal is to lower it. The Moderates want to lower it to 0.7 percent and the Sweden Democrats to 0.5 percent. The probable consequence of this will be a reduced aid moving forward.

I become a little worried, or even very worried, when I hear not only that it is about gradually involving civil society – for civil society is not involved, despite the expert knowledge that exists – but that Gudrun Brunegård also says that she hopes there will also be a dialogue with us in the committee. That made me a little surprised, because I assumed that there was a dialogue there at least. But Gudrun Brunegård has therefore not even participated herself in these discussions.

Then it might be difficult for her to answer my question, which I think is interesting. If the overall strategy from the Kristdemokraterna is to ensure that the aid becomes so effective that everyone thinks it is reasonable to increase it, how will it be made more efficient? Is it through what we heard in the last reply, to put aid organizations out to tender and see who does the best job?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Eneroth, for giving me the opportunity to clarify if I was unclear or expressed myself carelessly! Of course, a dialogue is ongoing, and my colleague is just on the way to such a meeting. We have also had ongoing meetings previously.

What I expressed hope for was that civil society should experience being included in a corresponding manner. But I want to say again that it is a bit absurd that a party which suddenly withdrew 18 percent of the total aid, so that it affected civil society organizations by 38 percent during the current year, questions that we are freezing the aid levels. It is about making it predictable and plannable.

With the efficiency measures and the reform agenda we have outlined, I believe we will see that aid truly becomes more effective and that more crowns will reach those in greatest need, that what we have written in the budget regarding increased climate aid and continued support for the rights of women and girls and so on will be fulfilled, and that our coalition partners will also be motivated as a result. What I have heard when I have listened to them in the debate is precisely that it is the unpredictability and the risk of money disappearing along the way that makes them critical of aid. This is something we need to rectify.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! Now Gudrun Brunegård gets her last chance to nevertheless answer the question: How is civil society to streamline this? That was my question.

I understand the confirmation that has now come that civil society has not been involved and that it was intentional. I regret it and think it is a pity, because that is where the expertise lies. I note that the Christian Democrats' choice of path means that one is now systematically settling for a lower level for aid going forward and has accepted this despite previous statements to the voters. It is a model we now recognize in several policy areas.

If one also freezes the amount, how then can more effective aid eventually become more, according to Gudrun Brunegårds wish? Perhaps the member can ponder on that in the future.

I think that everyone listening to and following this debate could still find out from some representative of the majority how civil society is to become more efficient.

Gudrun Brunegård said in her speech that if several people are doing it, perhaps some should not do it, and we can see who does it best. Should we put this out to tender and see who is the best at assistance in this country? Can you describe how the selection will take place, who should be removed, and when one will find out this? Does not Gudrun Brunegård's statement in the debate create exactly that uncertainty and fear in the civil society organizations that she says she wants to avoid?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! In negotiations with three other parties, we have accepted a temporary freeze for three years which will provide room for reform work. There, we will achieve more efficient aid where more crowns will reach those in greatest need and to the prioritized areas that are described in the budget.

Tomas Eneroth, a former government representative, says that the Social Democrats stand up for aid. But if you look at the figures, you see that it is no more than 0.91 percent that the Social Democrats are allocating to aid in this year's budget, even though they have not had to negotiate with anyone else.

I think it is Tomas Eneroth who should be held accountable instead. Now, unfortunately, he has no opportunity to answer, but perhaps he could do so in some other way. Would Tomas Eneroth be prepared to introduce a cap on the aid in the same way that we have now managed to get the other government parties to agree to do?

When it comes to the streamlining and what Tomas Eneroth is starting to worry about – that certain organizations would eliminate others – it is rather the case that it is at the expense of the core support organizations that one needs to focus. There, you have several different organizations working on exactly the same things in one and the same country. It can also be the case that in one country one works with a certain thing while it is done by another organization in another country. That is where one needs to streamline.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! "I have a son, a partner, three dogs, a cat and a robot vacuum cleaner. I walk my dogs, watch Doctor Who and go to work every day. But around the clock, we hear the alarm and the sound of the Russian rockets."

Order is my name, Annas. She and four other women sat right in front of me and many others in the chamber here in the Swedish Riksdag just a few days ago: Martha, Natalie, Anna, Tanja and Natalia - five women who tell about their everyday life and their work in war-torn Ukraine. There is no doubt and no alternative in their work, only an absolute belief: "It is our destiny to protect the democracy and rest of the world."

Earlier the same day, I read reports about all the Ukrainian children that Russia has kidnapped and taken away, and now are being adopted by Russian adults for reprogramming. These are reports that also describe in detail the torture of civilians, so-called filtering, to see who is loyal to Russia. People are being executed and buried in mass graves.

Evil can be seen as the absence of goodness and the absence of empathy. Here, the evil is total. I know that our support here in Sweden for Ukraine is absolute and self-evident, all the way. But it is not only because it is right, but also because it concerns our own security, our freedom, and our democracy.

This is obvious. All of us who live in Sweden know this. We are reminded of it, not least in our everyday lives when electricity prices rise. It is therefore easy to explain why aid to Ukraine should exist.

But the world is bigger than that. We have climate change and a pandemic that has had an impact. That means that poverty is now beginning to increase again. We have a generation of children who, in many places, have not attended a single day of school.

We have girls who are being married off at increasingly younger ages. This risks increasing exclusion, and democracy retreats. It happens in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Guatemala, on the Horn of Africa and so on. The list can be long.

In that situation, the government removes the one percent goal. Besides the fact that the resources should actually increase, it signals, even though we still have generous aid globally, that Sweden is backing down and taking a step back.

The government speaks of efficiency, leadership, and synergy effects. Here I absolutely agree. If it is done in the right way, there are absolutely things in Swedish aid that need to be reformed. It is about how it is done.

When one, in a situation like this, reduces the sum, focuses very strongly on the immediate area and furthermore reallocates so that one primarily focuses on humanitarian aid and reduces long-term aid, it awakens a concern in me and many others. We link the aid to the migration policy in order to jointly deter people from coming here. It makes Sweden even more perceived as a country that builds walls. It is strange that one does it in that way.

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless want to highlight the genuine commitment that exists both in our committee and in the Riksdag, even if we sometimes reach different conclusions.

People speak of a paradigm shift. Here, I agree. A paradigm shift is truly taking place, and it is causing concern. We have in the committee spoken about the fact that the goal is fixed. We in Centerpartiet wrote a motion about it to truly ensure that the goal for aid shall be precisely poverty reduction, development, and democracy development.

But when one looks at the proposals from the government, I still think that something else shows up. This concerns the mentioned condition linked to the migration policy, but also that one speaks of favoring Swedish interests.

Centerpartiet is absolutely for increasing the synergy effects with trade policy and engaging the business community to a much higher extent than what is done today. That is good. It is also good to invest in local companies on-site at the recipients. All of that is good. But it is still a focus on the recipient themselves that is what is important. That is the essential part, not to favor Swedish interests.

Then we have the process that we have discussed here several times today. Why is there such a hurry that we must depart from the agreements that exist? Why can the Riksdag and civil society not be involved when we carry out the major reorganization of the aid? You are closing off that transparency and dialogue. It is worrying.

When other countries reduce their aid, Sweden could have continued to be a leading country, a respected pioneer. Instead, we are now reducing resources and closing our borders.

Stone by stone we are building a wall against the outside world in some kind of delusion that it can give us increased security. This is being done despite the fact that history shows that walls are an extremely expensive and short-sighted way and that it mostly creates a chimera of security and nothing else.

People who feel safe are able to resist. People who have knowledge and can question can resist. People who feel seen and feel supported dare to resist. Therefore, it is so important that we, with the help of Swedish aid and with our international policy, ensure that people all around the world feel safe and that we take that responsibility. It is something that benefits Sweden.

We should focus on providing support that instead leads to sustainable jobs, climate transition, and a functioning democracy. In that case, education, promotion of entrepreneurship, and active work with democracy and human rights are needed.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! We are talking about aid. What is aid? Yes, aid is help. In this case, it is financial help where we - Sweden, a wealthy country - help other countries, other organizations and other people, who do not have the same financial opportunities as we have here in Sweden.

In the definition of aid from the OECD, it states that the financial support shall primarily promote economic development and prosperity in poor countries as well as work to counteract oppression. We are all quite in agreement that this is good.

Leading up to this day, I have spoken a great deal with party comrades in Liberalerna and with other wise people. I have also delved into Sida's work and read about successful aid projects and about less successful ones. What I have concluded is that aid is not a simple issue.

The changes that are now occurring in the budget compared to previous years are that the government is presenting a multi-year budget framework that is not based on GDP but is a fixed sum every year. There is also a fixed ceiling for deduction. This provides better long-term perspective, and it will become easier for the aid organizations to plan their work with the aid.

Sweden has for many years been best in the world at aid. We have given the most aid per capita, and we have been able to afford that. But then changes occur in the world, and also in Sweden.

Right now, we have an economic crisis with high inflation and raised interest rates. We have an energy crisis that will hit the Swedish people hard. We may see companies going bankrupt and people losing their jobs and perhaps even their homes. And not least, we have a war in Europe. This means that we have difficulties even here at home, here in Sweden, which we must address.

With this budget, we are no longer the best in the world. We are only in the top three or top four. We are still the best in the Nordic countries. We are one of the few countries in the world that reaches the aid goal that the UN has set and that several countries have signed on to.

If I have calculated correctly, there are 192 countries that are worse than Sweden when it comes to aid, if it is a competition. I want to emphasize that we in Sweden still have a very high allocation in our budget for aid. It is 56 billion per year before deduction, and it is therefore to be limited by 8 percent.

To then hear that there are other countries that look down on Sweden, who point at us and say that we are bad role models: Is that not unreasonable, if that is the case. I have truly looked for statements of that type from representatives from other countries or international organizations. I have not found anything such. I wonder: Who is it that does that? Is it the UN that has complained about Sweden?

In some of the emails I receive from citizens here in Sweden and organizations, some are horrified that Ukraine is receiving such great support. It comes at the expense of other aid projects, which then receive less. But that is how it works. There is only one wallet, and it is from that we must prioritize.

I have said this before in the speaker's chair: I also want to help all people in the whole world. But it is not possible, and there will always be people who will be disappointed.

When it comes to Ukraine, we have men, women, and children who are suffering enormously. I do not think we should keep comparing the different sufferings of countries. Ukraine needs urgent help now. And I believe that Sweden should continue to support the EU's joint coordination when it comes to generous aid to Ukraine, both as loans and as grant funds.

We Liberals have always stood for humanism and humanity, and we have always been an advocate for Sweden having a generous aid policy. We still think so.

I am going to do something so unusual as to give a straight answer here in the chamber: No, the Liberals will never agree to back down and halve the one percent goal for aid, at least not as long as I am a member of the Liberals.

But we liberals are also responsible, and we have an understanding of how the country stands and that we now must also take responsibility at home. We see that many people in Sweden today need help. We see how the school needs more resources, how the municipalities need more help and how the police must be strengthened.

We also see how the world is bleeding. The government now wants the aid to become more effective and that we should focus on the democratic regression that we all see. We must prioritize democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law. It is the content of the aid that is most important, not the size of it.

As a liberal, I also want to emphasize that particular focus should be placed on the rights of girls and women – girls' right to education. And the human rights for persons with disabilities and for hbtqi-persons shall also be specially highlighted.

What I have now enumerated shall be requirements for Sweden to provide aid to a country. And requirements is not an ugly word.

There must also be requirements that aid be linked to good results, effective governance, and zero tolerance for corruption. For me, these are self-evident. But we know from experience that it has not always functioned that way. I therefore look forward to us having a more effective aid policy during the mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Melin for his speech and the announcement that a 50 percent reduction will not be agreed to, which is nevertheless welcome.

The Liberals have historically stood very strongly behind the one percent commitment. Gudrun Brunegård from Kristdemokraterna previously referred here today to the cap on the settlements as a clear negotiating victory in order to agree to release this commitment.

I would simply like to ask the Liberals what their excuse is for betraying the election promise of 1 percent to the world's most vulnerable.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not easy to betray one's voters. But at the same time, we have a reality that looks one way one day and another way the next. Miljöpartiet knows that too. You had a Minister for Development Aid in 2015 when the deduction became whatever it was so that Sweden could receive the enormous flow of refugees that came here. You took a responsibility, for which I take my hat off. The Social Democrats have been criticized here for making deductions this spring in connection with the flow of refugees from Ukraine. I take my hat off because they took responsibility. That is what it is about. We have a wallet, and it is the taxpayers' money, that we can use. We must see how the world looks.

Right now, we have financial problems in Sweden. Interest rates have been raised, and there are people who will not be able to afford to stay in their homes. We must take responsibility for them too, and this government is doing so. Unfortunately, it happens at the expense of the few billions that then disappear from the aid budget. I regret this, but that is how reality looks.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for this clear message that the world's poorest are being abandoned for other priorities. We do not stand behind these priorities.

The government also says that the level of ambition needs to be raised globally in climate work, in work to preserve biodiversity, and in work to reduce pollution. They say that they intend to expand and streamline climate aid and contribute to the developing countries' capacity and thus the implementation of the Paris Agreement. So far, that is the situation.

I hope I am wrong, but after Sweden's Minister for the Environment attended both the COP meeting on climate and the COP meeting on biodiversity without bringing any increase in ambition with them in their luggage, this with higher ambitions sounds mostly like bla, bla, bla. They promise a lot, but deliver little.

The Liberals have previously not only stood behind the one percent commitment but have also been the bourgeoisie's best party on both climate and environment. How can one then agree to lie so flat on issues that decide all our futures in such a decisive way?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I interpret it as that this question was essentially the same as the first one that was asked.

Yes, the Liberals are the liberal voice in this bourgeois government with the support of the Sweden Democrats. And who knows how it would have looked without the Liberals in this government. We might have received an even larger reduction of the aid budget. We do not know that. I was not present at the negotiations, and the member was not present at the negotiations, so we do not know.

The Liberals will always work for the vulnerable here in the world. We will never betray them and never back down there. But we are a small party. We are a large voice, but it may not be so strong in this context. But we do what we can, and we will continue to do what we can to work for those who suffer and starve and are not doing well in this world. We will continue with that; I can promise you that.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I naturally want to ask the same question as I have asked the other government parties, and it concerns the process and how you from the Liberals view the fact that civil society and the Riksdag have not been allowed to enter the process so far and how you intend to handle this moving forward.

Then I have a specific question just for the Liberals, as I know that the Liberals are passionate about education issues. Someone has whispered in my ear that with this new proposal for the aid budget, the already quite meager support for education will become even lower and land at approximately 1 percent. How do the Liberals view this, and is it something that the Liberals will work to change, given that we know that education is something that is truly effective from an aid perspective? I would like to have an answer to that.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I begin with the question of education for poor people out in the world. I spoke with an aid worker last week who has been in Afghanistan and worked with girls' schooling there. This schooling has been possible thanks to aid, among other things from Sweden through the UN.

If the member asks me, we liberals will continue to work so that people all around the world can continue to receive a good schooling and receive an education because it is important. Yes, we will continue to work for that.

But as I said before, we are a small party, and we have to fight to get our important heart issues through. But this is one of our heart issues, and we will continue to fight for this.

When it comes to the process, I entered this game, so to speak, in the second half and was not in the dressing room for the tactical talk when it comes to the work in the committee here in the Riksdag. I therefore cannot answer the question of why the opposition has not been involved more than it has been. I am sorry that I cannot answer that.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the honesty in that answer. I can imagine that more people share the view that one perhaps does not quite know why it has turned out the way it has in the process, because it has gone insanely fast. That is also part of the problem.

I am myself a representative for a small party and want to convey that it is possible to have a strong voice, even if one is a small party. It is important to really not give up on the values that are the foundation of the party.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I know that it is possible to make an impact even as a small party. In other contexts, the Liberals have pushed through good things in heart matters. It is possible, and we will work on being a strong voice and try to influence even within this area.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been a long time since the world found itself in such a catastrophic situation as it does now. We have had a pandemic that killed millions of people and devastated many economies, especially in developing countries.

When the pandemic eased, Putin invaded Ukraine, and we have once again a war in Europe. It concerns an aggressive attacker that previously delivered large amounts of oil and gas to Europe, Russia, and a victim of the attack that is commonly referred to as the world's breadbasket, Ukraine. The war thus inevitably leads to sky-high food and energy prices. We see it here at home, but it is even more noticeable in other parts of the world.

At the same time, climate change is here and hitting with full force, and most often those who are already vulnerable. Here at home, we can counter the economy and help households and companies, even if the government may sometimes be slow to fulfill its promises. But in many places, one cannot do anything. Help and support in the crisis is missing, with catastrophic consequences. Millions of people today stand without the possibility of buying food. 50 million people risk starving. These are staggering figures.

All of this the government knows. Nevertheless, one chooses to depart from the one percent commitment, which has long been a guideline for all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. That is no longer the case. That is what we know. But what else do we actually know about the government's policy when it comes to international development cooperation? Unfortunately, we do not know much. But there is reason to be concerned. Major changes are underway but completely without transparency, impact assessments, or consultation with the various actors of aid, and without the Riksdag's influence.

The basis for Swedish international development cooperation is to improve the conditions for people in poverty and oppression. The global sustainability goals in Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement shall provide policy with guidance and content. These are goals that we have set together and for which we must increase efforts to achieve. We do this by continuing to live up to our commitments within the UN and other multilateral forums. We do this through continued core funding and non-earmarked funds. We do this by supporting civil society and giving them the conditions to continue their work, which makes a difference for millions of people around the world. I truly hope that the government gives them the conditions.

Before the pandemic and the war, things looked brighter. In recent decades, more and more people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. People's health has improved, and more children have gained access to education. International development cooperation makes a real difference.

Madam Speaker! The consequences of the Corona pandemic for the world risk setting back this development by several decades in many countries. The world now needs to collectively find ways toward development toward a world that is more equitable, equal, and sustainable. For this, Sweden needs to lead the way and pursue a feminist foreign and development policy that prioritizes equity and equality. It is this, together with efforts to prevent climate change and increased efforts for peace, that truly ensures that people are not forced to flee.

But the government will scale back all of this in order to instead set goals to focus aid policy as a tool to counter irregular migration or to promote Swedish exports. This is counterproductive and a betrayal of international solidarity.

The direction that the government has announced, with trade as a means for increased prosperity and reduced poverty, may sound good. But it must not be used as a means to condition aid on buy-backs from Swedish companies or that Swedish companies should operate in certain countries. It simply does not allow for OECD-DAC's regulations, which several have already raised in the chamber.

The crises of recent years have been toughest on already poor countries. It is also the inhabitants in those countries who have been hit hardest by the climate crisis, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the increased prices. Goals are easy to set. Having the right policy to reach them is significantly harder. More support is needed on more fronts, not empty barrels that rattle symbol politics.

Madam Speaker! We want to see strong and continuous support for Ukraine. But it is our conviction that Sweden can manage to meet the crises in our immediate vicinity while continuing to maintain a decent level of aid globally. The bill to support Ukraine shall not be sent to the world's poorest, which will be the result of the government's policy. The efficiency that people talk about simply cannot outweigh the transition that is now set to occur.

Miljöpartiet wants to see an aid budget instead where the goal is 1.25 percent of GNI. This shall be phased in over five years and be made permanent from 2027. We do not want the cost of receiving refugees to be taken from the aid and therefore want the deductions to be minimized. The aid shall go towards fighting poverty, not towards administrative costs. In the spring, the deductions were so high that Sweden's municipalities risked becoming the very largest recipient of Swedish aid. So we cannot have that.

The climate, environmental destruction, the extinction of biodiversity, pandemics, war and conflicts - our time's great challenges are global and cross-border and therefore require collective efforts to be stopped. Through climate aid, we support the developing countries in their implementation of the Paris Agreement. We and other Western countries have built our prosperity on a fossil foundation, but the growing economies cannot repeat those mistakes. Climate aid must increase in both quantity and quality. Large-scale financing of climate measures is required for investments in both reduced emissions and more climate-adapted societies in many parts of the world.

Miljöpartiet wants to increase climate aid and wants Sweden to contribute an additional 200 million to the Loss and Damage Fund that has now been established.

Sweden has all the conditions to continue being a strong voice for climate work. But that voice is now falling silent.

Many people are starving in the world today. We need to support the development of sustainable food systems that can withstand climate change. Here, the Swedish civil society is particularly important. For nearly 50 years, they have worked with development aid with the goal of creating new independent economic activities within both food and agriculture. In terms of efficiency, it is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty and hunger, according to both the World Bank and EBA. It often involves support for women and therefore contributes to increased equality. Additionally, it helps to promote biodiversity and with necessary climate adaptations.

The entire Swedish civil society working with international development cooperation has enormous knowledge and experience within their fields. It is they who make Swedish aid so successful in most areas.

But now we stand here today with this somewhat deficient budget bill without particularly many answers other than that one wants to cut back and reprioritize. We know nothing about what will happen with the strategies for the world and nothing about who will be affected by the consequences.

I regret it, and I hope that the government does not take any drastic measures before impact assessments have been made and before a broad preparation has been carried out with civil society and the Riksdag. If one means business with their fine words, this is an absolute self-evident matter.

The goal of aid is and shall continue to be to improve the conditions for people in poverty and oppression, and I sincerely hope that the government continues to stand behind this.

Since our budget motion has already been voted down in the chamber once, I do not move for the acceptance of any reservation, but instead refer to our special statement.

In this speech, Emma Nohrén, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Janine Alm Ericson. I do not ask it to create conflict, but to avoid misunderstandings.

In a previous exchange between Janine Alm Ericson and Gudrun Brunegård, Janine Alm Ericson spoke about the new focus on Ukraine. And now in the speech, Madam Speaker, there was an argument that the support for Ukraine occurs at the expense of others, if I did not misunderstand Member Janine Alm Ericson's speech.

I ask the same question to Janine Alm Ericson that I asked Tomas Eneroth. A war is ongoing in our absolute vicinity. This must also have consequences for Swedish aid. I wonder what Miljöpartiet thinks. Does Miljöpartiet think that Ukraine should be the largest recipient country when it comes to Swedish aid in the coming years?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. I have been very clear that our support for Ukraine is rock-solid. We have, from the first crisis package that arrived, shortly after the war broke out, stood behind all the proposals that the governments have had – both the old and the new. I want to be very clear about that.

But just because one can take from a budget item, it doesn't mean one must do so. The war in Ukraine is terrible. There we really must commit as much effort as we can. But just because that war has broken out, the other problems in the world have not disappeared. We still have huge effects from the pandemic. We see how people are starving. We see climate changes that must be fought. It is about both reducing emissions and building adaptation so that not more people have to flee or die. That is what it is about.

But when one says that it is precisely the aid that is to pay for the support to Ukraine, it is de facto the case that one imagines that the world's poorest and most vulnerable are to pay. We turn against that. It is completely clear.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Now, my question was whether Ukraine should be the largest recipient country when it comes to Swedish aid. It is clear that the support from Sweden to Ukraine is greater than what is contained within the budget for expenditure area 7. It is the military support, the long-term support, and the political support. The support is thus greater than what is contained within the budget for aid. But my question, Madam Speaker, was whether the Green Party thinks that Ukraine should be the largest recipient country in the coming years when it comes to Swedish aid.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would not like to say that it is an absolute figure. We know that the world is more unpredictable than that. We have very clearly declared that we stand behind the support for Ukraine. We believe that it should be firm and long-term and that we must do everything we can so that Putin does not succeed with his invasion and thereby escape the responsibility that he has in this situation. But we do not think that the world's poorest should pay the bill. We see that Sweden, as one of the richest countries in the world, can afford to take other means.

The Moderates have instead argued that one should stick to the surplus goal, save more money and lower the national debt in a situation where we face multiple crises. It is not a responsible policy. It is to bury one's head in the sand and stare down exactly where one stands and not see that the conditions in the world have changed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The world is characterized by high energy prices, inflation, a climate crisis, and a severe loss of biodiversity, which create major parallel challenges. At the same time, a war is ongoing in our immediate vicinity, and there are famine catastrophes and increased poverty all around the world.

Miljöpartiet's budget for 2023 shows that it is possible to think anew regarding both the challenges in Sweden and the challenges in the rest of the world. We can reach the climate goals and reduce poverty in the world despite tough economic times and an uncertain world.

Today we stand here in the chamber to debate the aid budget. But it is difficult to conduct a debate on such an important issue when we know so little about what the government actually wants to do. No dialogue is being held regarding the enormous change that is intended, and it will be until after this debate before we see what priorities the government makes and, above all, what will be deprioritized. The little we know comes from the statements that have been made in, among other things, the government's statement.

Madam Speaker! We know that one abandons the one percent goal at a time when poverty and hunger are increasing in the world in the wake of the corona pandemic and in the wake of increased conflicts and diminished democratization in several countries. We know that two of the government parties promised solemnly before the election that the one percent goal would remain, but now they bow to the Sweden Democrats' populist and out-of-touch rhetoric.

Madam Speaker! We also know that the government wants to reduce the so-called core support and increase the focus on civil society organizations.

When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, virtually all aid actors left the country, but the UN remained as a guarantor of the international community's presence. When the corona pandemic broke out, the World Health Organization was quick to act and issue recommendations and coordinate vaccination campaigns. When Russia attacked Ukraine, it was the UN's presence that quickly helped to coordinate efforts. In Myanmar, it is essentially only UNDP that remains as an actor today.

The civil society that the government says it wants to focus on itself says that core funding is of absolute importance for them to be able to carry out their work. The UN is in many cases the infrastructure itself for the interventions carried out in many countries. The UN stands for long-term perspective. The UN stands up for children and other vulnerable people. The UN contributes to running schools. The UN facilitates and coordinates the humanitarian efforts needed in war, natural disasters, and famine.

Madam Speaker! We know that the government wants to coordinate foreign trade and aid while simultaneously saying they want to increase efficiency and transparency. But promoting Swedish exports and making aid conditional on migration policy goals goes against the principles of development effectiveness. For decades, Sweden has been a driver in increasing transparency and results in development cooperation and is now taking over the chairmanship of the global partnership for development effectiveness.

But now the government is abandoning the commitments to the principles of development effectiveness. It means that the proposed aid policy will not lead to the results needed for people living in vulnerability and poverty. It also means that the government is abandoning the principles that are supposed to ensure that taxpayers' money is used effectively – the effectiveness that one claims to uphold.

Regarding transparency, the government is taking a major step backward. In 2003, a unanimous chamber decided on a policy for global development that all policy areas should contribute to a just and sustainable global development, where the rights perspective and the perspective of poor people are placed at the center. When Agenda 2030 was added, the government that MP sat in in 2016 adopted a policy framework for development policy. This work was carried out in a consultative process and with a referral procedure, in which all aid actors and many others participated.

When the government now radically changes the aid, it happens without dialogue and consultation with the civil society that it says it wants to strengthen. It happens without any investigation showing the consequences. It happens without dialogue with the Riksdag. It goes completely against the joint commitments that the previous government developed together with civil society organizations for strengthened dialogue and cooperation within development cooperation.

Madam Speaker! We finally know that the government wants to shift the focus from the world at large to Europe and, above all, the Nordic region. It is Swedish business interests and Swedish security that shall form the basis for foreign policy and aid. This goes completely against the fundamental principle of aid, where it is the recipient's needs that should guide it. Aid shall create better conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. Aid shall be used in the way we know is most effective, through long-term commitment, based on the recipient's needs, and with local ownership.

Now, as we see perhaps the worst famine catastrophe ever on the Horn of Africa, the government shifts its focus to the surrounding area. Conflicts are flaring up in the Great Lakes region. In Latin America, there is a somewhat fragile peace agreement in place in Colombia, and Swedish aid has supported democratization work and the building of a functioning rule of law in, among other places, Guatemala. In both Myanmar and Afghanistan, one faces incredibly great challenges, not to mention the war in Yemen with the terrible humanitarian consequences we are now seeing. Then the government shifts its focus to the surrounding area.

With the government's proposal for the aid budget, democracy work in the world is decreasing. Education initiatives, healthcare initiatives, and SRHR work are decreasing. The government's budget reduces the possibility for economic development and risks increasing hunger in the world. This, in turn, will lead to increased tensions and a greater risk of conflicts, which in turn risks increased refugee flows, which drives an even greater risk of armed conflicts. In other words: The government's focus on Swedish interests and Swedish security risks, instead, decreasing Swedish security.

International aid

Madam Speaker! The changes the government is now implementing in aid are not based on facts, evaluations, and impact assessments, or on consultations with the actors who carry out the aid. Nor has there been any preparation in the Riksdag. We are facing a paradigm shift in Swedish development policy, both in terms of volumes and in terms of direction and quality.

As we have said, we do not yet quite know how the government wants to prioritize. We do not know what will be cut and what will remain. It is not until the end of the week, when the regulatory letters to among others Sida are published, that we will know more.

International aid

The Green Party wants to continue to pursue a feminist foreign policy. We want to continue the streamlining of aid and constantly make it better. We also want to eventually increase the aid appropriation to 1.25 percent of GDP. Otherwise, I refer to the Green Party's fantastic budget motion in its entirety.

In this speech, Jan Riise (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

General environmental and nature conservation

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