International aid

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU8 International Aid.

The report focuses on two areas: the reform of aid and the aid to Ukraine.

The Sverigedemokraterna motion proposal was submitted to the Riksdag during the general motion period in the autumn of 2023. This was therefore before the government presented the reform agenda for aid, which took place in December last year.

The reform agenda is a product of the cooperation and agreements between the government and the Sweden Democrats within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. Therefore, we stand behind the committee's position to reject the motions in the report and also our own, with reference to the work that the government has already started or will start according to the agreement.

Mr. Speaker! The reform agenda describes how aid shall be channeled and yield increased results moving forward. Swedish aid shall become more efficient and results-oriented. It shall also have good transparency. We must certainly be able to both know where our aid funds end up and be able to follow up on whether they yield the expected results.

Swedish aid shall create conditions for better living conditions for people who today live in poverty and oppression. Swedish aid shall contribute to well-functioning democratic societies, economic development and trade, and improved health for the most vulnerable. Swedish aid shall expand and streamline climate aid and contribute to strengthening the freedom and empowerment of girls and women. And the Swedish aid shall include effective measures to reduce the root causes of migration. This is something that is criticized by some. But if we can increase the standard of living and improve the living conditions for those who today live in poverty and oppression, we also reduce the causes of irregular migration. We contribute to creating conditions for people to act and live in safety.

International aid

If we reduce the climate impact and thus the consequences thereof, we reduce further root causes of migration. Through good working conditions and trade, the standard of living can increase, and thereby better living conditions can be created for those who today are tormented by poverty and oppression. Thus we can reduce further root causes of migration.

These are just a few examples where aid and migration are closely linked, which should be encouraged rather than criticized.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's aid is incredibly generous but truly not infinite. Unfortunately, the world's need for aid is incredibly great and the funding gap perhaps even greater. It is necessary for us to prioritize. We cannot give everything to everyone. That is just how it is.

In the reform agenda, it is described exactly which priorities are being made. It concerns both thematic and geographical priorities.

The thematic priorities focus on the areas where Sweden can contribute the greatest added value through funding or expertise. The focus is also to prioritize the areas where there are the best conditions to achieve results for the set goals.

So why this focus on goals and results? Some might wonder why the focus should not instead be on helping the most vulnerable. One obviously does not exclude the other. Effective development aid is precisely that aid which, in the long run, is no longer needed. To reach that, it is also important to have indicators and data that show that one is on the right track, that the intervention works, that change is possible, and that it is actually happening.

Mr. Speaker! The thematic priorities that we have landed on focus on poverty reduction through job creation, trade, and education, improved health for the most vulnerable, promoting freedom and combating oppression, expanded and streamlined climate aid, strengthening the freedom and empowerment of women and girls, strengthening synergies between aid and migration policy, and strengthened humanitarian support to save lives and alleviate distress.

Within the framework of our priorities for aid, we shall, among other things, support small-scale enterprise, agriculture and entrepreneurship to strengthen local markets and at the same time contribute to increased economic freedom and empowerment. We shall support vocational training that is necessary for the local economy. We shall contribute to improved access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene in schools. We shall contribute to health interventions for the most vulnerable, to vaccinations and access to life-saving treatments. We shall support interventions that strengthen women's and girls' self-determination, economic empowerment and educational opportunities. We shall counter sexual and gender-related violence and harmful practices such as female genital mutilation. We shall support interventions that improve access to sex education, sustainable family planning and contraceptives. We shall also support interventions to improve access to safe and legal abortion. We shall promote diversified democratic participation. We shall promote freedom of religion, including the right to freedom from religion. We shall promote the rights of religious minorities, especially Christians. We shall contribute to creating conditions for free elections and protect electoral processes against improper influence campaigns. We shall promote free and independent media. We shall work for the mobilization of capital within the framework of climate aid. We shall counter child marriage. We shall promote opportunities for return through reintegration and through peacebuilding efforts. We shall combat human smuggling and human trafficking.

Yes, this is only a small part of the thematic priorities' focus.

Regarding the geographical priorities, we will have some country strategies. But we lift our gaze to look at the whole, partly by establishing regional strategies where several countries are included, partly by looking at what other collaborations and dialogues Sweden has with the countries concerned within other policy areas or through the thematic priorities. Even if a country strategy is missing for a certain country, it does not necessarily mean that it is excluded from Swedish aid. It may be covered by the regional strategy or thematic strategies or be a recipient of Swedish-funded aid through multilateral organizations or civil society organizations.

Mr. Speaker! Even though one would wish that the situation were different, we still have a country in our vicinity with acute needs for assistance. I am, of course, speaking about Ukraine.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Sweden has provided humanitarian and military support. We have also provided financial assistance and contributed to reform work and reconstruction.

Supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainians in their struggle for their freedom and security is also to stand up for the rules-based world order.

It is extremely important that the EU, Sweden, and other like-minded countries continue to provide strong support. Therefore, it is also very welcome that Sweden has a long-term plan for the aid to Ukraine and that it clearly appears in the reform agenda.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

The situation in Gaza is catastrophic – we all know that. Over 33,000 people have been killed, of whom 14,000 are children. There is a shortage of everything: food, water, electricity, medicine, and so on. Children are starving to death in this now, are traumatized and lack sufficient protection from Israel's bombs.

Despite the horrific situation prevailing in Gaza, the government, with the support of SD, froze the aid to Palestine at a time when it was needed most. Freezing the support to UNRWA - the only aid organization that is large enough and has enough staff on the ground to make a difference - was deeply irresponsible and risked human lives.

Freezing development aid to organizations working for democracy, human rights, and equality was downright counterproductive, but when the government finally decided to resume the aid - both the aid to UNRWA and eventually also the development aid - SD's party leader Jimmie Åkesson protested against the resumed aid to UNRWA. Do you stand by this position, Yasmine Eriksson?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I regret that the Left Party does not take reports of irregularities seriously.

It is about a fundamental rule within Swedish aid. When indications are received that something is not going right – that it is corruption or, as in this case, that aid workers may have been involved in murdering Israelis – it is our duty not to continue paying out funds to the organizations. The decision was primarily made by Sida, just as they do for all organizations when such things occur. It is therefore entirely in accordance with the routines and nothing special for just UNRWA.

The Sweden Democrats stand firm that money should not be paid out to UNRWA. It is an organization that should be phased out.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I truly regret that the Sweden Democrats do not stand up for the Palestinian people. It is difficult to find words for the fact that the Sweden Democrats do not see the catastrophe on the ground in Gaza today and that UNRWA is the only organization that has the possibility to reach out to people.

Children are starving, women are forced to undergo operations and have C-sections without anesthesia and so on. That is the situation. I truly regret, Yasmine Eriksson, that you do not see that the need is as enormous as it is.

An investigation or a report has been released showing that Israel has been unable to present any evidence whatsoever supporting the claims that a larger number of UNRWA employees can be linked to terrorist groups such as Hamas. This appears in the report that arrived just recently and which was commissioned by the UN. The investigation was led by France's former Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna. There is therefore no evidence, and even if a few individuals in UNRWA had participated, it is completely incorrect to accuse the entire organization of it.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I certainly view the situation for the Palestinian people on the Gaza Strip with great concern. What you describe, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, is appalling. I cannot even imagine what it is like to be in the situation you described, for example, that pregnant women can be forced to have C-sections without even having access to anesthesia.

It is a terrible situation, not to mention the hunger that is spreading ever more. Therefore, it is important that access to interventions in Gaza is granted. Both Sweden and many other countries provide an extreme amount of humanitarian aid, but the problem is that it is not getting in.

Sweden has increased the budget for humanitarian aid to the area, so it is not that we are doing nothing. However, not everything is done by UNRWA. The organizations that have already entered are not UNRWA-funded. It is not those funds that go there, but it is possible to support more organizations so that they too can contribute to the situation. It is not only one organization that can be involved and contribute to people's health and safety in Gaza.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Yasmine Eriksson, for your contribution!

I would like to ask how the Sweden Democrats view the image of Sweden that is currently being conveyed outwardly and which has deteriorated recently, not least depending on the fact that the government base, where the Sweden Democrats are the largest party even though they do not sit in the government, has decided to pursue a policy that increases emissions.

Sweden is taking a step back in international climate work and scrapping feminist foreign policy while other countries are introducing feminist foreign policy. Yasmine Eriksson is part of a party group where there are members who incite against Muslims and who have a party leader who speaks about tearing down mosques.

It is serious that this image of Sweden is being spread. Not least today's debate on aid shows that there is a discrepancy between how Sweden is perceived in the world and how the government base perceives its own policy.

Sweden gives less in aid. Sweden is stepping away from the one percent goal and wants to be less generous than before. A fixed sum is established for aid every year, and the gap to the one percent level becomes larger with each passing year. This naturally affects the image of Sweden, not least now when the government plans to nationalize the civil society aid, which affects thousands of partners in nearly 100 countries.

What does Yasmine Eriksson want to do to improve the image of Sweden in the world?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Part of the great problem is precisely this type of rhetoric, which portrays the picture that Sweden would not be good enough. Sweden is one of the countries that has the highest share going to international aid. The same applies to the climate area, where Sweden is one of the countries that has the lowest carbon emissions. That we should be ashamed of our situation or of how we handle these issues in Sweden is simply incorrect.

Regarding the one percent goal, I am surprised that the Social Democrats are still trying to make it sound as if they stand up for it. The Social Democrats claim that they will indeed ensure that it is a goal. Talk is cheap. It would have been a different matter if the Social Democrats had also allocated 1 percent of Sweden's GDP to aid in their own budget, but they do not do that. There is very little difference between the government's budget and the Social Democrats' budget proposal.

We must also not forget that during the time of the Social Democratic government, large sums were taken from the aid budget to fund the reception of asylum seekers in Sweden. Money was thus taken from the rest of the world, where people live in poverty and oppression and where many more people could be helped at a lower cost. The Social Democrats chose instead to prioritize a high level of asylum reception in Sweden, a costly one. Is that how the Social Democrats mean that Swedish aid should be managed?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer regarding how the image of Sweden is being negatively affected, but was only told that the problem is the Social Democrats' rhetoric. I do not accept that. The problem is that Sweden is taking steps backward on the international scene and is becoming a more passive and regional actor instead of being an active global actor. It is clear that there is still aid remaining. It is clear that Sweden is still a major donor of aid. But that does not mean that the trend or tendency is moving in a positive direction.

I have sat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs since 2006. I have traveled around the world in all possible directions and attended all possible meetings, and I hear the difference now compared to before. One is worried about Sweden's role in the world, and one looks at Sweden in a different way. One worries that Sweden is taking steps backward.

When it comes to offsets, we believe that Sweden should follow the OECD-DAC rules. I would like to take the opportunity to ask Yasmine Eriksson about the 82 million kronor this year and the 893 million kronor next year that are to be moved from the fixed sum of 56 billion to cover refugee costs that do not fall under the OECD-DAC rules, i.e., refugee costs that arise after one year in Sweden – year two, year three, and so on. You want to move nearly 1 billion kronor from this "fixed" sum in the budget. It doesn't seem to have been that fixed, as there is more to take from it that is not in accordance with the DAC rules.

The answer to my question is that we shall follow the DAC rules. Why does Yasmine Eriksson want to remove money from aid and give money to refugee costs that are not DAC-eligible?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Social democrat Olle Thorell asserts that Sweden is now a passive actor on the global arena. Could it be because we do not have a one percent goal for aid? I do not really know. Very few countries live up to it. Internationally, the goal is usually to reach 0.7 percent of GNI for aid, which Sweden already exceeds. As I described earlier, we are at the top among countries that give the largest share of GNI to aid.

My party does not sit in the government, but the government still has an ambition to actually take the positions that the Social Democrats have avoided on the international arena. We are enormously underrepresented in many multilateral forums. In relation to the support we give to the various organizations, we should have more positions. Therefore, it is one of the government's focus areas, and I believe it also stands in the reform agenda.

Regarding the image of Sweden, I naturally want it to be positive. With the help of the government's method Team Sweden, we can show what are Swedish contributions and how Sweden is participating and contributing in different countries. This is part of improving the image of Sweden.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the speech, Yasmine Eriksson!

The Sweden Democrats are strong advocates for preventive support, that is to say, ensuring that people simply do not need to flee, which is perfectly reasonable.

If we then look at who is fleeing to Sweden, we see that a majority of the refugees come from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iraq and Somalia. This makes me wonder. We can now see that the government and the government base are reducing support, for example to Afghanistan, by 40 percent. The reasonable thing would rather have been to focus on these countries, which really have major problems, and try to have as much development aid as possible there, precisely to prevent people from needing to flee.

That does not quite correspond. What is Yasmine Eriksson's position on this?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that aid should go to interventions that we have a strong belief will do the most good. The fact that there are major problems in a country and for the people living there unfortunately does not mean that the aid that Sweden gives can achieve the results we desire. In that case, it is better to allocate funds to countries or organizations where we can actually see results and where we know that the money reaches its destination and does what it is supposed to do. That is what it is largely about.

As we both know, Afghanistan is extremely problematic. Very few organizations are allowed to operate in the country. Obviously, we would have liked to see a different situation in the country.

Regarding the other countries, one must not forget what I said in my speech: We will have country strategies, and we will conclude some bilateral strategies. But there will also be regional strategies where several countries can be included within the framework of this and also for the thematic priorities. It is not always about the bilateral support, but different countries may receive different aid based on different criteria and strategies.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is completely correct that it is not always about the bilateral supports and that it absolutely can be regional supports or other forms of multilateral supports. The problem is that the government base is reducing the proportion of development aid, while at the same time - for very reasonable reasons - focusing a large part on, for example, Ukraine and that area. I am saying absolutely nothing about that.

The development support is still becoming smaller. Should one not then have focused it specifically on those areas that we actually know people are fleeing from and invest in those development projects? It might not give as great an effect in quantity but rather in quality. Should not Sweden take the lead and really be there where people are most vulnerable?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We must absolutely be in places where people are most vulnerable, but it is not always possible.

Development aid is decreasing, but it is decreasing in favor of humanitarian support, which we are increasing. Development aid is often based on cooperation. Fundamental to development is that it is possible to cooperate with the state in question. Absolutely, there are civil society organizations that can fight against a state that is not democratic or similar, but if one is to make institutional changes and improvements, a willingness to cooperate is also required from those who govern the country.

It is an obstacle, but we are working on it. That is why the requirements we set, for example in the migration area, provide an opportunity to open up for this type of cooperation.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today's report concerns the aid policy. We Social Democrats, of course, stand by our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 1. We also have a separate statement where we describe our position on the development of the reform agenda itself, which we are not entirely positive about.

Mr. Speaker! It is not strange that a new government wants to develop new policies in the field of aid. It is no great shock that a Moderate Minister for Aid specifically highlights the role of the market and the business sector and synergies between trade and aid.

There are good things in the reform agenda. The goal for aid remains firm. There are priorities that everyone can agree on regarding global health, human rights, SRHR issues, democracy and poverty reduction. There is none of us 349 in this chamber who are against this.

But of course, there are also things that we are critical of, including how this reform agenda was worked out. It was not a process characterized by dialogue and an interest in anchoring the new policy outside of the negotiations that took place at the coordination office for the Tidö parties. They tried to reconcile aid-friendly Christian Democrats and Liberals, who ran for election on guaranteeing the one percent goal, with Sweden Democrats who were genuinely uninterested in the issue beyond wanting to halve the aid. The reform agenda is a product of these negotiations.

The process for anchoring and dialogue that played out was more theater than a genuine will to take in input and other perspectives. This concerned not only input and perspectives from us in the opposition but also, what is worse, from Swedish civil society, academia, expert agencies, representatives for the recipients, international institutions, and other relevant actors. Among them is an immense competence and knowledge to draw upon, but unfortunately, that was not done. Nor did it result in any memorandum or bill to the Riksdag, but it only became a government decision.

The danger when handling major changes to policy in this way is that the changes one wants to implement become difficult to carry out and that the policy becomes short-sighted and unsustainable.

Even regarding the substance of the agenda, there is criticism from us. We are strongly opposed to SD and the government abandoning the one percent goal in aid. We Social Democrats want to restore the one percent level in a rapid manner when we get back into power.

One justifies the abandonment of the one percent goal by arguing that the focus is on quality and results instead of the size of the aid. That is a false dichotomy – all parties agree that the aid should maintain a high quality and lead to the best possible results. What we disagree on is what proportion of Sweden's wealth we want to invest in fighting poverty and oppression in the world.

We are also very critical of narrow Swedish self-interests being allowed to dictate the direction of aid. It is clear that Swedish interests should be promoted in all politics and in all policy areas, but this does not mean that aid should only stem from, for example, the interests of Swedish companies or the interest in using aid as a lever or a tool to pressure repressive regimes to take back their deported citizens. The perspectives, rights, and needs of the poor and the vulnerable must be the self-evident starting point.

Let me now move on to how the implementation of the reform agenda has become. I apologize if I am going to exceed the speaking time somewhat - this is such an important area that I feel that I need to lay out the text on it.

This is worrying in many ways. The reform agenda is loosely held and generally written. It is in regulatory letters, in budgets and in agency management that we see how the reform agenda is handled, and there it is worrying. For example, the entire Swedish Research Council's grant for development research has been phased out. Feminist aid and foreign policy is scrapped. Sweden has also left the bilateral cooperation on development aid with some of the poorest countries in the world; countries such as Mali, South Sudan, Burkina Faso and Cambodia are on that list.

We also see that the aid to Palestine has been poorly handled. Before the war broke out on October 7, the aid to Palestine was halved in that year's budget. When the war broke out, Sweden distinguished itself in a negative sense by freezing development aid to all of Palestine and requesting an investigation from Sida on whether money had gone to Hamas or other terrorist organizations. When Sida returned with the investigation, which showed that was not the case, the government refused to accept the conclusions and requested a renewed investigation. After further months, even the new investigation showed that there was actually no reason to stop the development aid.

After that, Sweden was one of the countries that fell for the accusations that came unilaterally from Israel regarding links between UNRWA and terrorist activities. UNRWA was said to have had employees who participated in the attacks on October 7. Now, an investigation has shown that there is no evidence for this, and Sweden is left standing there with the shame.

The government has also scrapped the strategy for Israel and Palestine, which shall now instead be included as part of a general Middle East strategy. This means that aid to Palestine will decrease in the long run. It also means that attention on this unique conflict decreases. In the strategy, Israel's occupation is not mentioned even with one word.

At the same time, before all our eyes, the tragedy in Gaza is unfolding, with tens of thousands of dead children, with famine spreading, and with 50,000 pregnant women who are terrified about how it will go for them and their babies. It is an entirely unreasonable human suffering. I believe that the judgment of history will be harsh against all those who did not do everything they could to alleviate the distress, stop the violence, and demand accountability for crimes against international law.

I also want to highlight how the Swedish government is now moving to nationalize civil society assistance. The assistance mediated by Swedish civil society through 17 strategic partner organizations is now being cut off at the knees. The government has tasked Sida with investigating how the agency can fully or partially take over the mediation of the assistance from these organizations.

Sida, as you are a state agency, did as they were told and terminated the agreements with these organizations at the sitting table during a somewhat shocking meeting on March 15. This in turn forced these popular movements to terminate the agreements with their partners. 1,750 partners in 90 countries are affected by this.

This is an inadequate and shameful procedure. I truly hope that the government takes to heart the storm of criticism that has come, not only from us in the opposition but from virtually the entire Swedish civil society.

This aid, which is a small part of the total civil society aid, is effective, results-oriented, well-audited, transparent and purposeful. It has, over decades, utilized the unique characteristics and advantages that civil society and popular movement organizations have.

When people's movements in Sweden work with their colleagues from people's movements abroad, the aid can reach and make a difference in a completely unique way. The 17 partner organizations are only a part of Swedish civil society, but they all deserve to be mentioned. They deserve to be lifted, not lowered. They deserve to be flagship organizations in Team Sweden instead of being threatened with cuts that one then perhaps, let's hope, backs down from at the last minute.

The organizations are Act, Svenska kyrkan, Union to Union, Svenska missionsrådet, Afrikagrupperna, Diakonia, We Effect, Naturskyddsföreningen, Forum Civ, Olof Palmes Internationella Center, Rädda Barnen, Plan International Sverige, RFSU, Världsnaturfonden, Individuell Människohjälp, Kvinna till Kvinna, Civil Rights Defenders and Svenska Röda Korset. I could stand here at the rostrum for hours - but I shall not do that, Mr. Speaker - and give examples of lives that have been changed for the better thanks to these organizations and successful development projects in dozens of developing countries that these very organizations have contributed to.

But I will take an example from Rwanda. Save the Children has a partner organization there that works with children and young people with disabilities. It is called Uwezo Youth Empowerment and was founded by Bahati Omar, who became blind as a child due to an accident. He decided to help other children and young people with disabilities to have a dignified life.

In Rwanda, disability is a major stigma, and in some families, it is a shame to have a child who is disabled and different from other children. They are not allowed to go to school but are kept at home and become isolated and cannot live a dignified life.

The organization was started, as said, by young people with disabilities in Rwanda to help children with disabilities so that they can go to school. They also speak with the families so that the children can participate in extracurricular activities. It is about breaking the stigma.

But now Uwezo has had its contract terminated because Swedish Rädda Barnen cannot guarantee the funding next year. This is a small organization that will not be able to participate in international procurement of new projects, which it seems is the intention that one should do after the turn of the year.

It is too sad and too bad, and I wonder how Johan Forssell, Katarina Tolgfors and all other Moderater and Tidöpartister will be able to explain to the founder Bahati Omar and the organization why Sweden is failing and no longer providing support to the children with disabilities in Rwanda. The trust in the Swedish state abroad is affected by this handling. It concerns 1,750 partners in nearly a hundred countries, and this was only a small example.

We Social Democrats describe in more detail in our reservation how we view the aid. Our policy is based on the needs and rights of the poor and the vulnerable. We want Sweden to strive to be a role model and a humanitarian superpower. We stand firm on the one percent goal and want to restore the aid to that level when we regain power. We want a feminist foreign and aid policy. We want to build a more equal world, where, for example, workers' rights and the Swedish labor market model are important pieces of the puzzle.

We want climate aid that contributes to the green transition. We want aid that is effective, results-oriented, and purposeful, ensuring that taxpayers get the best possible benefit from the money Sweden collectively invests in international aid. We also want to promote Swedish interests, but in a way that also promotes global development. We want more focus on Agenda 2030 and the global development goals that are now being deprioritized.

We are critical of the government's management of the aid policy, but that does not mean we consider that everything was perfect when we last held government power. We want to develop our policy so that it is in step with the times and how the world has changed. This applies to all policy areas, including the aid policy.

We will therefore, ahead of the 2026 election, launch a Social Democratic reform agenda for aid. We will do this properly and with a genuine will to take in knowledge and proposals from relevant actors, and we want to anchor the proposal in good dialogue with the surrounding society. We will, of course, start from our values, but it must also be based on science and proven experience. We want to engage in dialogue with the organizations of popular movements and the parties in the labor market, both unions and the business sector. We want to hear from academia and other experts and learn from development research and how other countries have succeeded with their aid. We want to take part in the recipients' perspectives and lessons learned.

We will invite to consultations and round-table discussions and send out proposals that everyone can react to - so everyone who follows this debate and wants to be involved in influencing the future Social Democratic aid policy, you are welcome to provide your input!

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have a proposal in the report that trade assistance shall be clearly linked to Agenda 2030 and the goals of the Paris Agreement. Why do the Social Democrats propose this when there are already parliamentary decisions on it? Why is there a push for this when the climate is already a major part of the reform agenda? The Social Democrats also state in a proposal that increased climate aid is central to the international work. But that is already in the reform agenda. What is it that the Social Democrats are so dissatisfied with?

The reform agenda includes, among other things, that Swedish climate aid should be increased and streamlined, while simultaneously mobilizing other capital to a greater extent. Furthermore, the catalytic effects of climate aid should be strengthened through technological innovation and mobilization of capital from the private sector, for example via challenge funds and guarantees, and this applies to both emission reductions and adaptation. Local capacity and conditions for financial markets, resource mobilization, and an attractive investment climate should also be developed to manage the triple planetary crisis regarding climate, biodiversity, and pollution. Furthermore, cooperation for the mobilization of private capital for the climate transition should be developed together with the USA and Nordic countries, and the work should be strengthened to ensure that Swedish companies' innovations and solutions demanded by partner countries contribute to the climate transition.

What is it in this that the Social Democrats are turning against?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yasmine Eriksson for giving me the opportunity to speak about the important part of the aid policy that concerns the climate and Agenda 2030.

I do not object to any of what is stated in the reform agenda regarding this, but I object to the fact that a part is missing. It is an all-too one-sided focus on market solutions, the role of companies, and private capital. It is of course good if we can generate capital other than public capital to combat climate change and facilitate the green transition. It is absolutely necessary, but that is not enough on its own.

You on the right have a naive over-belief in market solutions and the business sector's sole salvific influence. Of course, the business sector and the market play a role, but it also requires action from states and from normative institutions such as the UN, through for example the Paris Agreement.

The Sweden Democrats have fought against the Paris Agreement, and the party is populated by climate skeptics. The Sweden Democrats' climate policy is formulated by Elsa Widding, who is now a political wild card. But you are still driving the government in a climate-skeptical direction. That is why it is embarrassing to hear Yasmine Eriksson's concern for climate aid.

It is obviously good to have many different measures to strengthen the climate, but what is missing in the reform agenda is the connection to Agenda 2030 and the aspects of public interventions.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Olle Thorell says that we have too much focus on market solutions and private capital. I thought it was a good thing to broaden the donor base so that it is not just states that are on board regarding the climate transition.

As stated in the reform agenda, the government shall, through the authorities, contribute to the achievement of Agenda 2030 by stimulating and supporting Swedish companies and participating in international procurements.

This is exactly what Olle Thorell is requesting. I therefore think it is very strange that the Social Democrats choose to reserve themselves on the issue. It is also a bit funny that the Social Democrats criticize that one works with companies in the climate area when they also have a proposal that the trade permit should clearly be linked to Agenda 2030 and the goals of the Paris Agreement. They also want to see that companies are utilized in the work with the climate, so this is a bit strange.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am sorry if it seems strange to Yasmine Eriksson, but I hope that others listening to the debate understand that one can think two things, or three or four things, at the same time. One can think that the role of companies and market solutions is important, at the same time as it is important with global agreements that one follows, at the same time as it is important to listen to the scientists' and the IPCC's proposals and take responsibility for following the climate laws that one enacts in the country, for example in one's own country.

It is not at all as Yasmine Eriksson makes it sound: that we do not understand the importance of private capital. It is clear that we understand it. If Yasmine Eriksson then cannot accept that we want other things as well, that is her loss. But I hope that the discussion has contributed to more people understanding what the Social Democrats mean in their reservation.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the committee report UU8. I want to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! The need in the world regarding measures to combat crises and disasters, poverty, oppression, and the consequences of war is enormous. We see a worrying development when authoritarian states disregard democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law.

It is therefore important to say that precisely democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law are three core values in Swedish foreign policy. These are also core values that accompany the aid reform and the aid agenda.

We see states and forces that want to sideline the rules-based world order that we in the Western world cherish and are prepared to defend.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a very restless world. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine affects the entire global security order.

We see the terrible situation in Gaza as a result of Hamas's bestial attacks on October 7 against Israeli civilians. 130 Israelis, women, children and elderly, are still being held as hostages, if they are even alive.

In the shadow of this, the war in Sudan has transformed the country into the world's current largest humanitarian catastrophe. The civil war between the army and the militia RSF has forced 8 million people to flee and led to over 18 million people needing humanitarian aid.

In parts of Latin America, we see a strong regression, not least regarding human rights and a lack of respect for the principles of the rule of law.

The needs are almost infinite. The world is changing rapidly, and with the rapid changes and the scale of the problems and needs that arise, it is right and important to update and review the Swedish aid system.

Mr. Speaker! Development cooperation is one of the most important foreign policy tools for promoting and safeguarding Swedish interests as well as for meeting the challenges that I have just mentioned and that the world faces. Swedish aid shall create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. That is the foundation.

The government decided in December on a reform agenda for aid called Aid for a New Era. The reform agenda indicates the direction for aid during the coming years and also constitutes the basis for several new processes to simplify, clarify and streamline the governance and monitoring of aid as a whole and to improve the results achieved.

The reform also means that we increase transparency, as has been mentioned here earlier in the rostrum. It is important so that the Swedish taxpayers know that the money is being used in the best possible way based on the needs that exist and based on Swedish interests, which is actually obvious.

The starting point is that Swedish aid shall be classified as ODA, official development assistance, according to OECD-DAC. The aid is now a state expenditure item, similar to other state expenditure areas, with a framework of 56 billion kronor per year during the period 2023-2025. The aid shall be steered towards clear goals and priorities, which also facilitates the evaluation of the aid. The system shall become more transparent, and an important objective is zero tolerance towards corruption.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's voice and commitment must continue to be strong in the world, and we continue to be one of the world's five largest aid donors. Swedish aid is generous, but it is not infinite and it is not unconditional. In a world with extensive needs, where the funding gap is growing, it is therefore necessary to prioritize.

The seven thematic priorities made in the government's aid reform have been mentioned previously. I shall dwell a little more on two of them.

A major focus in the government's aid agenda is humanitarian support to save lives and alleviate distress. That is the first strategy. We unfortunately see a very great need for this. This applies, for example, to the situation in Gaza.

The second strategy I want to highlight is efforts that promote democracy and freedom and combat oppression. The reason is the one I mentioned earlier; this is something we see is in decline as more authoritarian forces and states are on the advance.

I also want to mention job-creating trade and education to combat poverty, just to address some of what has been criticized here earlier. If we have an over-reliance on the market and the private sector, I would like to remind, not least the Socialdemokraterna, that it was in this way we built Sweden strong – through entrepreneurs, through free enterprise, and by building up our industry. We also want to give that opportunity to other countries.

It is not an end in itself that aid should become something that countries become dependent on. When one travels around the world and meets those who are recipients of Swedish aid, one notices that most want to get out of poverty. They want their country to develop so that people can live freely and influence their own lives and their own futures.

I will briefly mention the strategy that I personally consider very important, which concerns strengthening the freedom and empowerment of women and girls. There are many good examples of this, not least when it comes to how civil society, together with other organizations, contributes to strengthening the role of women and girls specifically. We do not call it feminist foreign policy, because we have our own policy. I am very pleased that this is included as a separate strategy.

In addition to the strategies, we are reducing the number of country strategies to include 30 prioritized countries.

Mr. Speaker! Civil society plays an indispensable role in the work to achieve the goals of Swedish aid. The cooperation between individual organizations in Sweden and the recipient countries plays an important and often decisive role. A vibrant civil society constitutes the foundation of our society, and so it is also in other countries. Together with free media and a rich cultural life, it is the foundation for democracy.

It is against this background that the government in the Tidö Agreement established that the proportion of aid to be channeled through civil society shall increase. This applies to civil society in Sweden but also among local partners in the countries where Swedish aid is directed. This has also occurred. A full 43 percent of the aid from Sida is channeled via various civil society organizations. Very valuable and important work is carried out by skilled and experienced employees at the civil society organizations. And I have spent my first two years in the Riksdag meeting almost all the organizations that are active.

Mr. Speaker! Today, a large part of the aid is channeled through the 17 so-called strategic partner organizations - SPOs - which have been selected by Sida. These have the mandate to in turn forward the aid funds to other organizations, or alternatively carry out activities and projects together with local civil society organizations in the recipient countries. The appropriation amounts to 1.8 billion kronor annually. It is a lot of money.

At the same time, the possibilities for oversight and external auditing of onward transmission and the selection of cooperation partners are very limited today. In line with the government's aid policy to increase transparency, the model with strategic partner organizations is now being reviewed and we are looking at how we can improve and streamline so that the money that Sweden contributes actually reaches its destination in the best possible way where it is needed most.

The government has therefore tasked Sida with submitting proposals that increase transparency and reduce the number of transaction links. It is a way to ensure that effort is focused on ensuring that we get the best possible results from the money where it is used.

It has been a three-stage rocket, where the economic reporting took place in April. Then there are an additional two dates with a deadline of June 30 when more documentation is to be submitted. After that, the government shall analyze this and then return with the final piece of the reform agenda.

When making major changes in organizations and operations, I can understand that there is a concern. But it is this government's goal with the reform agenda that civil society is and will continue to be an important and central part of Swedish aid.

Mr. Speaker! I will conclude with a good example, also from Rwanda where I was just recently together with Member Johnsson Fornarve. The organization Wateraid, together with among others the Swedish embassy, had created an excellent study program, and we were able to visit two regions in Rwanda, the northern part and the southern part. We did this together with the organization Wateraid on site. Wateraid is an organization that largely finances its activities with private funds and a smaller part with state funds. They also collaborate with companies, both in the country and in Sweden, which contribute private capital. I think it is a very good example of how one can effectively work with aid. What Wateraid does is that they work and provide villages and communities in Rwanda with the very most fundamental things that we take for granted, namely clean water and sanitation. This ensures that people living in places that are far from the cities and towns in Rwanda can actually have the most basic things in life. It is something that, not least, supports women and girls who often are those who get stuck in managing this. It also affects their opportunities to work or to go to school.

There are, therefore, good examples of how Swedish aid reaches where it is intended, namely to people all around the world who live in poverty, who are affected by climate change, or who are forced to flee due to war and conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! The government's reform agenda for a Swedish aid policy is perfectly adapted to the restless world we live in, and change is what is needed so that we can also be involved and have an influence in the future as well.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. I would have preferred to direct my question to the Minister for Development Cooperation. He is unfortunately not here, which I regret. Therefore, I must direct my question to member Katarina Tolgfors instead.

On 29 February, the government tasked Sida with investigating how the agency can take over the onward distribution of support and replace the current system with strategic partner organizations - a new system to be launched on 1 January 2025.

Sida is now at its best currently terminating agreements with strategic partner organizations, even though the agreements have not expired. By strategic partner organizations, we mean organizations from civil society, for example Kvinna till Kvinna, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, Afrikagrupperna, Diakonia with several others. There are 17 of them. Why is such chaos and such anxiety being created among civil society organizations by terminating entered agreements? It risks knocking the legs out from under a well-functioning aid that has been built up over decades. It is aid that goes to democracy fighters, women's organizations, trade union organizations, and human rights organizations all around the world. Now all this important work risks going to nothing. Important experience, knowledge, and above all trust that has been built up over all these years is now threatened. How is one thinking?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is important to convey that this is an incorrect picture that is being spread. And I think it is very unfortunate that the opposition is fueling this. I have had several meetings recently with civil society organizations, bilaterally but also in larger groups where, among others, Member Johnsson Fornarve has also participated. I was at a meeting where there was a very heated atmosphere.

Many of these organizations also want the Swedish aid to be improved. That is what I hear when I speak with them. Many think that large parts of the reform agenda are necessary and good. Then it is completely understandable that in times of change one feels an anxiety when one does not quite know what it means for one's own organization.

But it is very important to say that the government's ambition is not for civil society to be removed from Swedish aid, on the contrary. But in line with the aid policy and when we are to review the whole, increase transparency and be able to increase the measurability of the interventions that Swedish taxpayers' money goes to in Swedish aid, it is fully reasonable that we also review the organization that currently exists and how the entire structure looks. The ambition is not to break anything apart, but it is to improve and ensure that the money put into the aid budget and also those who work in the system, for example civil society, lead to the best possible interventions where they are needed. They do that today. But everything can always be better. Status quo has never developed either organizations or societies.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Katarina Tolgfors for the answer. I have also met with these civil society organizations. Last week I had a meeting with almost all of them. And everyone expressed a deep concern about what is happening. People do not feel that they have been listened to. Staff are being laid off. They have informed their partners in countries that they do not know what will happen after January 1 and whether there is any support to be paid out or not. It is an enormous concern, especially within these different organizations. And it concerns many projects. There are 1,700 projects in 90 countries that are affected.

We previously heard Olle Thorell speak about an organization that helps children with disabilities in Rwanda. It is an example of an organization that does not know if they will receive any support. There are a number of such organizations – women's organizations, environmental organizations, and human rights organizations – that are now sitting and are very worried that they will not receive any support after January 1.

Why did it have to be done so abruptly? Why are entered agreements being terminated - agreements that are not finished, which have been planned for a long time and which are planned to remain in effect for a long time ahead? This is throwing away resources. I understand the great concern that exists.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! When changes are implemented, it can never be fast enough or slow enough. I am of an age where I have had a long professional life before entering the Riksdag during this mandate period, and I have both been affected by and participated in the implementation of major changes in organizations. It is clear, and has been for a long time, that the government intends to present a new aid policy and that it will involve changes.

I say it again: I understand that there is a concern. But I have also met very many organizations and employees who say that this is an opportunity and something necessary. Sometimes change is necessary. It can be difficult, but the purpose is to improve for those for whom the money, our funds, are intended. They are for the poor people who need development and support or to strengthen democracy in the countries that we prioritize for the aid to go to.

I believe it is very unfortunate to fuel this anxiety. It is better instead, as many of the organizations I meet, to behave as constructively as one can to find new ways forward. It usually also ends up being conducive to the organization or the people who are affected by the change.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! In many respects, I truly agree with what the member Katarina Tolgfors says. But I still have a question, and it concerns Team Sweden.

Team Sweden is a fantastic initiative where authorities and companies cooperate to develop activities in countries. But it would have been even better if there had been an arena where civil society was also involved, so that you got both civil society, companies and authorities.

Are there plans moving forward to include civil society in Team Sweden, or will you come up with another platform where all these three parties are included? That is when you get the really big synergy, because all three are needed.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Team Sweden is a concept that I have primarily encountered in the business sector previously. It is very good that we are expanding the concept, because there are many actors who should be part of Team Sweden. Perhaps it is not my role as a politician to micro-manage who should be included and who should not, but I believe it is quite natural that one is open to new collaborations.

The idea of expanding civil society's role is also to support the local civil society organizations in the partner countries. Here, I am quite convinced that it can contribute to being part of Team Sweden in some contexts, while in other contexts it is the local effort with the local actors that is most important.

That Sweden and Team Sweden should be a strong voice in the world and that we should be engaged and contribute to development, to combat poverty and to alleviate distress is quite clear in the government's reform agenda. This is what we want to achieve. How exactly it is to be done in detail, there are authorities and others who know much better than I. I do, however, welcome those who have something to contribute to join Team Sweden.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! As a politician, one should naturally not interfere in everything, even though I think that this government in certain matters interferes far too much. But when one now presents a reform agenda where one so clearly shows that civil society, entrepreneurship, and business are incredibly important parts and that the state and the authorities also have a role to play, would it not then be quite natural for the government to have initiated this cooperation? What I have understood is that, among other things, civil society has also requested such an arena with all these parties.

I absolutely agree that the local perspective is the most important. At the same time, however, this is connected. The networks that exist between civil society organizations are global. Wouldn't this still be something that the government should address, given the overall spirit of the reform agenda?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that was what I said in my previous answer. If there is a situation where it is seen as justified for civil society to be involved in what is formally called Team Sweden, I do not see any obstacles. However, I do not see that I can stand here and point out exactly how, where, and when. I believe that others in this system should do that. When one works in different projects or turns to different countries, it can happen quite naturally.

But again: The focus is on civil society organizations, and the context where we believe they fulfill the best function is in the local community in the countries where we are active.

We see this, for example, in Ukraine, which I had the privilege of visiting last year, with their resilience and their cohesion among themselves. The Ukrainians show an incredible endurance and also, which I believe is very important, the ability to hold together interpersonally. It is important that there are organizations even for that, and there civil society is the most important part.

I do not want to say that anyone should not be part of Team Sweden, but to say exactly how it shall proceed is not my task.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to refrain from being overly sarcastic and upset. During the 17-18 years I have spent in the Swedish Riksdag, however, I have never encountered such anger from civil society organizations as the one we face now when a Moderate-led government wants to nationalize the folk movement grants. That alone is a very odd thing for a Moderate-led government.

It is not about a fear of change. It is not about being timid and scared and worrying unnecessarily in civil society Sweden. That is not it. This is for real. This is a death blow to civil society in Sweden. This is cutting ongoing agreements that work very well in the middle of the contract period in almost 100 countries and 1,750 different projects. I described one of them from the rostrum earlier. It is not about being timid and worrying.

You handle the development aid budget in an incredibly clumsy way. I will make a quick comparison. It is a bit like going to the hairdresser and hoping to get a new, nice hairstyle. You go into the hairdresser's, and quite surprisingly, the hairdresser takes out a chainsaw. Then he ties a blindfold over his eyes and says: Do not worry about changes! This will probably go well.

It is a completely unreasonable way to handle civil society and the popular movements. I hope that the government will back down from this.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Thorell says that he will not object, but he can at least stick to the truth and not put words in my mouth. I just said that I have full understanding that one feels an anxiety in times of change. I have really not said that it is something to ridicule – on the contrary.

It is responsible to review what can be improved. It concerns a very large amount of tax money: 56 billion kronor. It is well obviously that one evaluates from time to time and looks at what can be better. Perhaps the previous government should have done that at some point during its time instead of just looking self-satisfied at its own aid work.

The world is changing at a very high pace, and there are very many hotspots, conflicts, climate impacts, refugee flows and so on. It is quite obvious that one must from time to time review the system we have, in this case for Swedish aid, and its functionality. Are we doing it in the best possible way?

Civil society does an invaluable job. I also have contact with civil society. It is the sector I meet with most in my role in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am a bit surprised that Olle Thorell wants to portray it as if a battle is taking place. I have a very good dialogue with those I meet. I see and hear their concern and try to explain the purpose, where we are headed, and why the government believes we must develop and improve the aid system.

I see and hear many who are constructive in this work. I believe that it is the best way forward, for their own sake but also for the organization they work in.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was not my intention in any way to diminish the member's commitment to these issues or respect for the organizations that operate here. I am sure that it exists.

It does, however, become a bit difficult when there is such a difference between how reality is described by the government parties and how reality is perceived by those working in the industry. It is said that it is an indispensable part of the aid, that it is the basis for democracy and that the proportion shall increase. But in reality, civil society organizations are desperate over all the people they must lay off and all the contracts they must break.

To want to change and improve is completely natural. It is clear that one should do so in all areas. But one should do it in a way that is reasonable and that leads to improvement. I can understand that one wants to reform civil society support. But why then does one not do it at a pace that involves getting the organizations on board and not terminating agreements in the middle of the contract period? One could say that all new agreements that are written should follow the new principles and let the functioning and good agreements one has run out first.

I really hope that the storm of criticism that I am trying to convey here reaches more than Katarina Tolgfors. Perhaps it even reaches the UD leadership, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister that you are about to cut the bridge between the state and civil society. It is a trust that is incredibly important in society.

420 more services on Sida and half a billion kronor in increased costs to administer 1.8 billion kronor in aid - is that a reasonable use of taxpayers' money?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have respect for the fact that Member Olle Thorell has sat in the Riksdag for 17 years, but perhaps it is time to step outside the Riksdag.

I have great respect and understanding for the fact that changes are painful and sometimes difficult. I have been involved in reorganizing large organizations. I have myself been affected by it happening. I know for a fact, and from my experience, one never gets a good grade afterwards. It has been too short, too fast, too slow, and so on.

But the government has a timetable for its reform agenda. It shall be done at the pace that is possible, considering that one also must look, investigate, and analyze. I believe that there is never a point in time that is right to cut or terminate agreements. But the ambition is not to remove civil society.

Today, however, there are many levels where transactions occur and there is no real insight into what the agreements look like, how they are linked, and which partners they choose. It is so much of the taxpayers' money that is being handled. In that case, it is fully reasonable to review how it can be done better and how one can work in such a way that the money or contributions that do reach the countries in question do as much good as is possible.

It is a fantastic job that is being done, and I believe the member knows what commitment I also have in many of the activities mentioned here. We contribute together with knowledge seminars in the Riksdag, go on study visits and get a fairly good insight into what role civil society has. They are important, and they shall continue to be. That is also the ambition with the government's aid agenda.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We stand behind the support for Ukraine, but it must not lead to Sweden abandoning other vulnerable parts of the world. But that is precisely what is happening here today. In 2024, support is being concluded for Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Mali, and South Sudan, which are some of the world's most vulnerable countries.

South Sudan is at the bottom of the UN's ranking of human development, the Human Development Index. Swedish development aid is aimed at peaceful and inclusive societies and the provision of basic community services. Both Sida's and civil society's work have a strong emphasis on equality. The work for women's and girls' rights has yielded results. But the progress risks being undermined when Sweden now withdraws.

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

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

Mr. Speaker! My question is therefore: What did the government's impact assessment actually say about the rapid phasing out of development aid to South Sudan?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

Sweden is reducing aid in, among others, the countries that the member mentions. It is connected to what I, along with several others, have pointed out here today, that we must prioritize. Resources are not infinite. Tax revenues are not infinite.

Many of these countries also have a rather complex environment to operate in. There is a deficit when it comes to democracy, human rights, institutions, authorities, and the rule of law.

It is here that it differs quite a bit in what we believe is important. We also see that instead, other strategies are being presented, for example land strategies, and that climate aid is increasing. If one analyzes and identifies countries where the need is great, there is also an opportunity to work with, for example, climate aid in a country.

The opposition is always fixated on the bag of money. We want an aid policy where we see that countries themselves have an ability to lift themselves out of poverty by stimulating and contributing to their economy being able to function and by getting entrepreneurship, business, and jobs started. But then the basic values must be in place with democracy, human rights, and stable institutions that people believe in. The government is actually increasing its funds in the aid agenda for interventions that are to concern exactly this.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The phasing out of aid to countries such as South Sudan and Cambodia is apparently not based on evaluations or public, accessible analyses. CSO support is being dismantled without first being evaluated. The reform agenda is being implemented without researchers or experts from the industry having been given the opportunity to respond to any written documents, and despite the fact that Sweden continuously tops rankings in aid effectiveness.

Alongside the experiences that experts in the aid industry can contribute, development research is of course a crucial source of knowledge on how aid should be designed to achieve the best possible result. Unfortunately, the government seems completely uninterested in the knowledge that the researchers contribute, as last year the large grant for development research was withdrawn in the middle of an application period.

The government has instead emphasized the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, EBA, as an important source of knowledge. We agree with this. But when the new members of EBA were presented the other day, it was clear that since the government replaced the members in a short time, there is no longer a single development researcher left in that expert group. I do not question the individual members' competence, but it seems as if research on development and aid is not seen as an important competence.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Member Tolgfors is whether she can answer what competence the government intends to utilize regarding aid and how one can evaluate the effectiveness of the aid when research and the expertise that exists on aid are constantly being undermined.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it is not that we are completely removing research. Research is very important and, of course, part of the basis that most governments use. Above all, I want to say that I have confidence that there are very competent officials at both UD and Sida and other organizations who provide the government with a basis for decisions. We also have authorities and other organizations linked to aid that provide a basis. I have very great confidence in that. Then, it is of course true that one sometimes looks at the research, and it is very important. No one has said that it is not important, but it is also one of the parts that I am honest in saying that one is reducing. However, it does not disappear.

Research is important. It can also be reached in other ways in society than through aid funds. I therefore think it is right that the money is instead placed in the pot that goes to, for example, humanitarian aid to Gaza or, in this case, to Wateraid which ensures that there is clean water and sanitation in villages in Rwanda. That is where the money does the most good. It is of course very good that we have research, and it remains.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! According to the government, the focus of the reform agenda shall be on long-term perspective, transparency and efficiency. These are slogans that I fully support, but unfortunately, the government is now doing exactly the opposite by rapidly dismantling a relatively well-functioning aid system. It is creating a less efficient, less transparent and less long-term aid system.

Sweden received a top grade in one of the OECD's larger reviews of previous aid. Of course, there are development and change needs, as in all activities. But most of it has been of very high quality. To claim otherwise is completely incorrect.

That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and reduced aid at a time when extreme poverty is increasing and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who are struggling the most. the Left Party stands up for the world's poor and still allocates 1 percent of GNI to aid.

In the reform agenda, aid is linked to a greater extent to promoting trade, investments, and Swedish companies' interests. Whether trade policy can be used to lift people out of poverty is, of course, welcome, but the needs are greatest in poor or conflict-affected countries where the business opportunities for companies are small. With the new direction, there is a great risk that the poorest and most vulnerable countries will be left behind. The Swedish interest must never come first! Aid should not stem from Swedish interests but from poverty reduction and the recipients' needs.

In our immediate vicinity, the war in Ukraine is raging, and the civilian population has been hit hard. Of course, we shall continue to assist the Ukrainian people in all conceivable ways – politically, humanitarily and militarily – but we must also not turn a blind eye to the conflicts taking place in other parts of the world. The reconstruction of Ukraine will cost enormous sums, and here the rest of the world must find other solutions than solely burdening the aid.

It is deeply worrying that aid to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, such as in Cambodia, Mali, South Sudan, and Burkina Faso, is being reduced or completely withdrawn. Those who are hit hardest are, as usual, women and children, who get poorer access to, among other things, maternal care, healthcare, sanitation, and clean water. I recently visited Rwanda together with Katarina Tolgfors and Wateraid and could personally observe what a great difference good access to clean water makes.

It is particularly serious that the democratic support to Cambodia is being withdrawn on short notice. It is an aid that has functioned very well, which is evidenced, among other things, by the report from the expert agency EBA. Recently, a report also arrived from four leading UN experts who warned about the developments in the country and demanded that the regime cease harassment against human rights activists in the country. Those who are most pleased about the withdrawn Swedish aid are, naturally, the Cambodian regime. The losers are the brave women and men who, despite threats of imprisonment, dare to stand up for democracy and trade union and human rights.

In Afghanistan, two-thirds of all children are dependent on emergency aid to survive. More and more children are forced to work instead of going to school. Girls are particularly hard hit. In this situation, the government chooses to significantly cut aid. It is serious. There are organizations on the ground that can make a difference, such as Rädda Barnen and Unicef. The Swedish Afghanistan Committee is currently prevented from operating.

Over 33,000 people have been killed in Gaza, of which 14,000 are children. There is a shortage of almost everything. Children are starving to death, are traumatized, and lack sufficient protection from Israel's bombs. Despite the catastrophic situation in Gaza, the government froze the aid to Palestine at a time when it was needed most. Freezing the support to UNRWA, which is the only aid organization large enough and with enough staff on the ground to make a difference, was deeply irresponsible and risked human lives.

Freezing development aid to organizations working for democracy, human rights, and equality was downright counterproductive. Now, the aid has been partially reinstated, but many question marks still remain regarding what will happen with the aid to Gaza and Palestine in the future. What is clear is that the aid is being cut when, instead, a massive support for Gaza and Palestine will be needed in the future.

In the government's spring budget adjustment, an adjustment of the aid is being made. It concerns approximately 1.5 billion kronor. Vänsterpartiet argues that those funds should have gone directly to the emergency situation in Gaza.

Equality is a key factor for real development, but unfortunately, equality is under attack. Oppression against women and girls as well as hbtqi persons is increasing globally. Many girls did not return to school after the pandemic. Violence, child marriage and teenage pregnancies increased. Education, healthcare, peace and security but also access to sanitation and clean water are important equality issues. The equality perspective must clearly permeate all parts of the aid policy. Unfortunately, clear guidelines are missing in the reform agenda for this.

The government emphasizes that equality is a core value - and that is good - but it is serious that the feminist foreign policy has been scrapped. It had a holistic perspective and was successful. Several countries followed the Swedish example.

It is difficult to take the government's ambitions for equality seriously when the financial support for equality and SRHR is not increasing, but rather decreasing in the government's initiatives. The appropriation to the UN system's most important body for equality issues, UN Women, has been more than halved. UNFPA, which does incredibly important work for SRHR, has its support reduced by a quarter. The funds for women's organizations' and civil society organizations' work with the agenda for women, peace and security have completely disappeared. According to Sida's budget forecast for 2025-2027, there is a risk that the funds for, among others, the global equality strategy and strategies linked to SRHR, Wash and education will decrease significantly.

In a time when equality and the work for SRHR is under attack, support needs to increase, not decrease. Vänsterpartiet believes that the gender perspective should permeate all aid activities, that half of the aid should go to women and girls, and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR, that is, sexual and reproductive health and rights.

An additional uncertainty concerns the important climate aid. The Government has promised an expansion of the climate aid, but it is unclear how it will be implemented and who will be eligible to receive it. Sweden can demonstrate international leadership for a global just transition by leading nationally, by elevating the climate to a foreign policy priority, and by increasing environmental and climate aid to the most vulnerable countries and groups.

The government also writes in the reform agenda for aid that it wants a larger part of the aid to go to civil society and directly to local organizations. It is therefore completely incomprehensible that the government is now, instead, pulling the rug out from under large parts of the civil society organizations that carry out aid.

First, the government choked off the funding for communication and information about the aid - the part of the aid that reviews the aid and highlights the aid's results as well as enables human rights defenders to be invited to Sweden to inform about the current situation. The government's actions mean that these people can no longer make their voices heard. This means that awareness and knowledge of the aid risk being seriously impaired in Swedish society at large, and that transparency decreases.

On 29 February, the government tasked Sida with investigating how the agency can take over the onward distribution of aid and replace the current system with strategic partner organizations with a new system to be launched on 1 January 2025. Sida is currently in the process of terminating agreements with strategic partner organizations, even though the agreements have not expired. This has created enormous concern, both among the Swedish organizations and among the recipients of aid around the world. Many are now asking what is happening with Swedish aid. It is very difficult to understand why Sida is preempting the investigation and terminating entered agreements before the investigation is complete.

For over 60 years, Swedish civil society organizations and popular movements have played a central role in aid work. The Swedish people have high confidence in civil society's aid work, according to Sida's annual opinion poll. Now the government proposes that Sida take over the popular movement aid. In doing so, decades of knowledge and experience would be lost, while an agency cannot possibly reach out to the local community in the same way as civil society can through its local partners.

The announcement has created a shockwave among the organizations and their international partners. Many of the agreements run over several years. The strategy's budget totals 1.8 billion kronor this year, but because the agreements are multi-year, it concerns agreements for several billion that Sida now wants to tear up.

About 1,700 partners in 90 countries worldwide are affected when their funding is now stopped. A long line of organizations worldwide that work for democracy, human rights, women's rights, trade union and religious rights, as well as climate and environment, are left completely helpless and do not know if they will receive any support after January 1. It is irresponsible. It is a great waste of taxpayers' money when well-planned activities may not be able to continue. It is definitely not an effective way to use aid funds.

The government has also signaled that it wants to open up for shorter agreements in the future, despite all research showing that long-term perspective is important for good and effective aid. The government's slogans regarding transparency, efficiency, and long-term perspective unfortunately ring increasingly false.

Swedish aid still has a good reputation around the world, but now the government risks shattering it and significantly reducing trust in Swedish aid as well as worsening the image of Sweden, an image that we should instead need to strengthen.

International aid

I move for approval of reservation number 2.

(cont. § 8)

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