International aid

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU8 International Aid, which concerns civil society's role in international aid. I move for approval of the committee's proposal to reject the motions.

Mr. Speaker! Last month, I was, together with a delegation of Members of Parliament, in Ethiopia. There, we visited, among other things, a center that provides support and education to children with various disabilities – children who would otherwise fall completely outside the society's protection systems.

The visit was arranged by Act Svenska kyrkan, and we were given the opportunity to see a concrete example of how civil society's work makes a real difference. It was a visit that touched me deeply. Mothers practiced physiotherapy on their younger children, and school pupils practiced skills that they can use later in life to secure their own livelihood.

I carry this visit with me – the care and security and the deep commitment for every child who was there. This did not only show the enormous need that exists. It also showed civil society's power and opportunities to act, especially for the most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! Civil society organizations are strong resources. People who organize themselves to help others are part of the solution. But good intentions are not enough. We must also have good governance and follow-up.

Swedish aid is still among the world's most generous, but generosity without results would be directly irresponsible. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the questions: Do the funds reach where they should? Do they make a difference for those who need it most?

I welcome the new CSO strategy, where it is clear that transparency in reporting shall increase. The results of the organizations' activities shall be reported – not only the activities carried out.

It should be easy for the public to see who receives support, for what, and with what results. In that regard, the website openaid.se is an important tool, which shall be developed and improved.

We must also set certain basic requirements for the aid. Payments may never go to organizations that have links to violence-promoting ideologies, extremism, or Islamism. Here, zero tolerance applies.

Mr. Speaker! One of the most important improvements in the CSO strategy is that a larger proportion of the aid will now go directly to local actors.

There should be a breadth in terms of which CSOs are eligible to receive the support. They should be of varying sizes, exist in different countries, and work within different areas.

This is crucial. It is precisely on the ground – with those who know the society, the culture, and the needs – that change can truly occur. When the support lands closer to the people it is intended for, the accuracy, the responsibility, and the sustainability increase.

We also want to safeguard the diversity among the smaller, Swedish CSOs. They can apply for support of up to 1 million kronor through a simplified model. They shall also be offered support regarding financial accounting and result reporting – this is to ensure capacity, quality, and transparency even when it concerns smaller actors.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to just change payment structures. We must also be clear when it comes to follow-up, transparency, and results. We know that hundreds of suspected irregularities in Swedish-funded aid projects are reported every year. It is not about isolated mistakes; it is a systemic error.

Every tax krona that disappears in corruption is a krona that does not make the difference it was intended to make. It is not just inefficient – it is completely unjustifiable. Therefore, it is good that requirements are made that all organizations receiving Swedish support shall have purpose-appropriate routines to both detect and handle corruption. There must be methods where potential deficiencies and risks are detected and addressed early. Reclamation of aid funds and legal actions in the case of corruption must be a matter of course.

Mr. Speaker! When crises strike – when the bombs of war fall, when people are forced to flee and when food and clean water run out – it is often the civil society organizations that are there first. In these situations, it is civil society, which is already established on the ground, that can quickly deliver with local trust and knowledge.

Civil society is a resource. In the long term, I hope that as many as possible have the capacity to stand on their own feet.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! This report concerns Swedish aid, with a focus on civil society. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservations 1 and 5 from the Social Democrats.

This is about how we as a country can contribute to combating poverty, strengthening democracy and defending human rights in a world where that work is becoming increasingly difficult.

We find ourselves in an extremely restless time. We now see how several countries that previously have taken responsibility for global development are turning their backs on the rest of the world. The USA is practically shutting down USAID and leaving behind a vacuum that will be filled by actors such as China and Russia, who have completely different motives.

In this situation, Sweden could have stepped forward. We could have taken a greater responsibility, not less.

Instead, the government has chosen to dismantle large parts of the aid that has been built up over decades, not least through aid via civil society organizations. Many hundreds of agreements have been terminated in connection with the new model for aid via civil society being presented. The organizations that for years have worked in close cooperation with local partners out in the world are now forced to shut down projects. This has undoubtedly caused damage both for the people who lose the support and for the image of Sweden as a reliable and long-term partner in the world – not just in the aid world.

Behind each of these agreements, there are people. When Sweden shuts down education programs in Central Africa, it is girls who no longer get to go to school. When women's shelters in Uganda are forced to close due to withdrawn support, it is women exposed to violence who are left without protection. When legal aid disappears in Kenya, it is people without money who lose access to justice. When Sweden leaves trade union cooperation in Bangladesh or Colombia, it is workers who lose their opportunity to organize for decent conditions.

These are not hypothetical examples but real consequences of decisions that have been taken in Sweden.

When Sweden leaves countries such as Cambodia, Mali, Burkina Faso and South Sudan, it does not mean that we leave a vacuum; instead, we leave room for other actors who do not share our values of openness, democracy and human rights. China, Russia, the Gulf states and others enter with money, influence and demands, and they do not build free societies. They build dependencies.

An area where the consequences are particularly serious is trade union assistance. We Social Democrats believe that trade unions are a cornerstone of every democracy. When workers in Bangladesh, Colombia, or Myanmar receive education about their rights, dare to organize themselves, and push for better working conditions, it does not only contribute to justice. It also contributes to stability and to societies where people are able to make their voices heard.

Swedish development aid has played an important role for many years. Furthermore, investing in development and democracy is not in opposition to a strong defense. It is part of the same whole. Aid is not an alternative to security; it is a part of our collective security. When we strengthen democratic development and give people power over their own lives, when we build societies that hold together, then conflicts decrease. Then the number of people fleeing decreases, and then stability and prosperity increase both here at home and there, out in the world.

To cut in aid to invest more in defense is to bite one's own tail. We Social Democrats have long said that aid and civil society are not only a way to help but also a way to build peace, prevent conflicts, and defend human rights.

This is especially true in a time like now, when democratic space is shrinking in country after country. In Belarus, Myanmar, Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and many other countries, organizations are being banned. Activists are imprisoned, and free media is silenced. When the state oppresses, civil society is the last counterforce. That is where courage resides—with the teacher in Nicaragua who refuses to stop teaching, with the nurse in Sudan who helps in a refugee camp, and with the journalist in Myanmar who continues to report despite threats.

It is these people we must continue to stand behind. We must not turn our backs on them. We Social Democrats want aid that is long-term, rights-based, and free from political micro-management – aid that trusts civil society, that holds on and does not pull out, and that sees people and not just systems.

I move again for the approval of reservations 1 and 5.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report UU8 on international aid and the so-called CSO strategy, the strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

The Government decided in September 2024, within the framework of the reform agenda for international aid, on a new strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society and its organizations for the period 2025 to 2029.

In the strategy, the government points out that civil society organizations are important partners in the implementation of Swedish humanitarian aid and development cooperation with other countries. The organizations contribute added value through their local presence and anchoring and can create opportunities for people to influence and improve their own living conditions. Especially in conflict environments and in difficult security policy contexts, local civil society organizations can be crucial for being able to carry out aid interventions. They also constitute an important part of a country's democratic foundation.

Mr. Speaker! A strong civil society in developing countries is also important in order to be able to implement Swedish development aid within a large number of strategies. There are also obvious synergies with Swedish interests within the broader foreign policy area, for example regarding democratic development, peace and security.

I would like to refer to the previous statement by Member Olle Thorell. If we take the example of Colombia, there are 27 UN organizations present in the country. My point with that is that it does not always yield more. The reason why the government, in its aid agenda, is reducing the number of civil society organizations is that they want to be closer to the local community so that the money can reach further with fewer intermediaries.

Mr. Speaker! I shall proceed. Sida and receiving organizations shall ensure that recipients of support in civil society do not have links to violence-promoting ideologies, extremism, or Islamism and that they stand behind democratic values and human rights. Sida and receiving organizations shall further ensure that support does not go to activities that oppose the rules-based world order and Swedish interests. The transition period, which extends until September 30 this year, gives the organizations time to adapt and review and terminate the entered agreements so that the number of CSOs can be reduced.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to mention some of the objectives of the new model and what it is intended to contribute to.

The first is responsible management of tax revenue. Sweden's international aid amounts to 56 billion kronor. That is a very large amount of money. In 2023 it was 0.99 percent of GNI, and in 2024 it was 0.91 percent of GNI. It was still above the limit of 0.7 percent of GNI that is recommended internationally and by the UN. That the management of tax revenue should be responsible is quite obvious. The aid must yield results and create an impact for every krona invested. It is not the sum that determines the effect of the aid. The Government strengthens the control and follow-up to ensure that the money is used correctly.

The second is efficiency and transparency in aid. The model aims for increased transparency, efficiency, and traceability of the aid funds. The goal is for the money to reach the recipient through fewer transaction links.

The third is the long-term strengthening of civil society. The model leads to increased independence for the organizations. The changes create conditions for sustainable development without aid dependency.

The fourth objective is increased security and quality control. I repeat that important requirements are that the recipient must not have links to violence-promoting ideologies or extremism. Swedish interests and democratic values shall be promoted, and the new model also provides increased control over which organizations may receive support.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to give a couple of examples. Wateraid is an organization that works to ensure access to water and sanitation. It is something that we in Sweden take for granted. It is something that, not least, strengthens the safety and security for girls and women and gives them opportunities for good or improved living conditions. Another example is SRHR initiatives where Sweden, through the EU, in the Philippines works very locally with civil society to support the work of strengthening sexual and reproductive health for girls and women. Civil society plays an active and major role in the collaborations and ensures that the aid money that Sweden contributes actually reaches all the way and meets the needs that exist in the recipient country.

Mr. Speaker! In a rapidly changing world where the rules-based world order is being challenged, we must find new and more effective solutions in many areas. This also applies to aid. It places new demands on our ability to navigate a new geopolitical landscape. The reduction of USAID affects the entire global aid system, and we can already see several negative consequences. But it also provides opportunities for new collaborations, alliances, and new solutions. Sweden, with its new reform agenda, is therefore well-prepared to transition. It is a position of strength regarding the aid work that Sweden contributes.

More countries in Europe need to contribute, and we must work more efficiently, smarter, and more innovatively. The effects of aid must become more sustainable and aim to strengthen countries and people's living conditions, economic empowerment, and freedom so that they can stand on their own feet. That is the objective of the aid. In that work, civil society plays an important and large role.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is good that the member thinks civil society is important. But in the government's strategy for civil society, it sounds as if civil society is to be tied closer to the government and in that way lose some of its independence and its autonomy. It is very worrying.

In the government's instruction to Sida regarding the support to civil society, it is not only stated that UD wants to be involved in steering decision-making processes. There is also a wording that the activities must not counteract Swedish interests. What are Swedish interests? Who assesses this, and on what grounds?

Does the member not agree that it is important for civil society to be able to act in its own right? Is not an independent and strong civil society, which also has the right to criticize the government, an important foundation in our democracy?

In the strategy for civil society, the government also writes that the funds cannot be used for influence, information, or lobbying work directed towards non-ODA countries. It is highly remarkable. Aid shall therefore not be able to go towards influence in non-aid countries. It shows that the government does not understand how modern rights and democracy work. Why should civil society not be allowed to criticize or influence non-aid countries? What is one actually afraid of?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! The implementation model consists of three parts. The first part concerns partnerships between civil society organizations and that support shall be channeled to a smaller number of CSOs. The point with that is to cut a transaction layer by ensuring that it is closer from governance, money, and distribution to civil society in the recipient countries. It is in the ODA countries or in Sweden that these civil society organizations exist. I do not know why the member says that it does not apply in the ODA countries. That is not correct.

Then I also do not know what the member means by criticizing the government. A dialogue is taking place. I have that dialogue, for example, almost every week with different civil society organizations – and it is a quite constructive one. We are going through a change of the system, but the majority of the organizations are very constructive and are looking forward. We discuss how we can work forward under the changed conditions.

It is fair game for everyone to criticize the government, but I do not know if it is the primary task of civil society organizations. Their task is rather to ensure that aid money is conveyed and processed so that it reaches those in need.

The committee members also spoke about why the number of civil society organizations is being reduced. It is to have fewer intermediaries. I think that is quite obvious. We handle very much money in the aid system. The important thing, the purpose and the goal, is to reach those who need the support in different countries. It goes without saying that with more intermediaries, less remains.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Katarina Tolgfors!

I am still concerned by the wording in the strategy which suggests that there is a desire to tie civil society closer to the government. I hope it is not true that civil society is not to be allowed to act of its own accord. There is a previous agreement that has been concluded between civil society and the government where, regarding common commitments, it is emphasized that the government shall support civil society in its own right, even if they may be critical of the government's policy on certain points.

Does Katarina Tolgfors think the government should stick to the previous agreement that civil society is allowed to act in its own right? I want a clear and distinct answer. I think this is extremely essential if one is to have a democratic, vibrant civil society.

I also have a question regarding the proposal on the ODA countries. This is serious, and it suggests that one does not quite understand how it works. For example, a climate agreement would not exist if we did not have conferences, cooperation, advocacy work, and dialogue between different actors in the EU and Sweden. Guatemala would not have been a democracy but an international cooperation in support of democratic forces. South Africa would not have been a democracy but influence on rich countries. There would also not have been any peace agreement in Colombia without a global cooperation for this.

The writing regarding the fact that one may not influence non-ODA countries is therefore very serious. Does the member not think that one is proceeding in the wrong direction?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the management. Since aid is now a budget item with a framework – currently 56 billion kronor – the management is carried out as in all other expenditure areas: directives come from the government. Then there is an agency, in this case Sida, which distributes the funds further. The whole point here is to shorten the chain. We are reducing the number of CSOs, but we are also providing more opportunities to apply. We want a breadth and greater variation and give more civil society organizations the opportunity to take part in the Swedish aid money.

When it comes to how they are to be used, there is, of course, always a steering and a political will. That is how the system is structured. There is nothing strange about that. I do not understand why there are question marks surrounding it.

The committee discussed, among other things, Guatemala. Just yesterday, a seminar was held here in the Riksdag together with Act Svenska kyrkan regarding the aid and development work in precisely Guatemala. It continues to function today, despite the fact that we have a new government and a new model for Swedish aid. We see how the local community has a role, but of course, the bilateral development cooperation and the dialogue at the political level also continue. The work continues there, and it is nothing that is hindered by a new implementation model in Sweden.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have repeatedly raised the need to increase the efficiency of aid and reduce the number of transaction links. That sounds very good, but in practice, the reform agenda, together with the will to press down state expenditures, has instead caused great damage. Sweden's reputation as a reliable aid partner has taken a serious hit and has created enormous uncertainty among partners worldwide.

When the Moderaterna chose to terminate all agreements with the strategic partner organizations, it affected 1,750 organizations in 90 countries. It happened without any transition plan, dialogue, or foresight. It cannot be called streamlining; it is a failure.

The Moderates also often speak about accountability and long-term perspective, but how does that square with the fact that Swedish civil society organizations were not even given information in time to be able to plan for their activities? Is this what the Moderates mean by predictability and partnership?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Alm Ericson and I have debated aid many times, and I thought we had moved past the point where we dwell on the agreements and how the transition should have occurred. It landed on the fact that the organizations were given a year, and they have had ample time to transition and are now to have concluded the agreements in September this year. I have had many constructive and good conversations and meetings with the organizations concerned. Most have moved forward, transitioned, and found new ways forward.

The purpose of the aid agenda is to reduce the number of organizations, the amount of information support, and other things that exist here at home so that more of the aid can go to the places where the needy are and to aid projects and initiatives to build economic empowerment and to promote health and safer environments in the recipient countries. Instead, we will ensure that more civil society organizations can apply for funds from Sida.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Katarina Tolgfors for the answer.

It is good that the government has backed down; one can say that it has done so. The government has tried to remedy some of the damage that was caused. The fact remains, however. The trust for Sweden's development cooperation and the policy we pursue has been damaged, and what I have seen is that this has not yet been repaired.

One might think that we should have moved past this, and certainly we face a completely new reality now that we need to handle with caution. The world is becoming increasingly darker. But I still want answers to my question. What do the Moderaterna mean by "predictability" and "having stable partnerships" when they do not stand by entered agreements but terminate them prematurely?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! My perception and experience is not that Sweden's reputation is damaged when it comes to aid abroad, on the contrary. I have traveled a fair amount during the parliamentary term to follow Swedish aid and see how we work on site in the countries where our aid goes. Sweden is still one of the world's largest donors. In 2023, 0.99 percent of GNI went to aid. In 2024, the figure was 0.91 percent.

I think it is obvious that in a system that handles so much money as 56 billion kronor, one oversees this and ensures that the money goes where it should and that efficiencies are made. It is a responsible way to work with Swedish aid. It creates trust among the taxpayers, but we also ensure that there is transparency and that the money goes where it should.

In the left's model, one gives 100 kronor, but perhaps only 40 kronor actually reach forward. We reduce the aid, but if one gives 80 kronor and 70 kronor go where they are supposed to, one can in practice see what efficiency can mean. That is the whole point: Swedish aid money should reach out and have an effect in the countries that we want to support and help.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and reduced aid at a time when the needs are greater than ever and when the UN warns of an increasing global hunger crisis, while climate change hits the world's poorest hardest, is not only irresponsible – it is morally reprehensible. The government has also announced that it intends to reduce aid by an additional 3 billion from 2026.

The government needs to rethink and restore the aid to 1 percent of GNI. That is what the Left Party does in its budget. We stand up for the world's poor and for a fairer world and still allocate 1 percent of GNI to aid.

The government abolished the feminist foreign policy but simultaneously says that equality is a core value, which is good. However, it is difficult to take it seriously when one simultaneously reduces the economic support for equality and SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. It becomes extra serious against the background of the withdrawn American aid. The large cuts in US aid particularly affect women and girls as well as LGBTQ+ people. If the support is not resumed, 34 million people risk being left without life-saving humanitarian support. Access to clean water and basic sanitation is also an important equality issue.

In a time when equality, LGBTQ+ rights and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden needs to act as a counterweight, preferably in cooperation with civil society. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the gender perspective must permeate all aid activities, that half of the aid should go to women and girls and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR.

It is also deeply worrying that aid to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world is decreasing or being completely withdrawn – it concerns Cambodia, Mali, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Burkina Faso. But aid is important for more reasons. When support is withdrawn to movements fighting for democracy and equality in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, it is handed over to authoritarian forces.

Aid is therefore also important from a security policy perspective. It should be in the government's interest to counter the fact that authoritarian forces gain increased influence. Civil society also plays an important role when it comes to support for democracy, human rights, and women's rights. If civil society is given the right conditions, it can make a big difference.

War and conflicts have greatly increased the need for humanitarian support. The world faces hunger catastrophes in several places. The situation is worst in Sudan and Gaza.

In Sudan, millions of people are fleeing from war, rape and famine and are in great need of support.

The fragile ceasefire in Gaza is now broken, and the Israeli bombs are falling again over Gaza, where hospitals, schools, and homes are already in ruins. Children who are already severely traumatized can no longer sleep peacefully at night. At least 50,000 people have already lost their lives in this brutal genocide. The situation is more than catastrophic.

At the same time, the situation on the West Bank is worsening every day. Settlers and the Israeli military threaten and kill Palestinians and drive them into flight by the thousands. In a situation where support for the Palestinians is more important than ever, Sweden chooses to completely stop the support to the UN agency UNRWA and to reduce the support to important civil society organizations and rights organizations, including the ecumenical accompaniment program. This is a death blow to millions of Palestinians. The Swedish aid to UNRWA and the rights organizations must be resumed.

Mr. Speaker! For over 60 years, Swedish civil society organizations and popular movements have played a central role in aid work. The Government has developed a new strategy for civil society. This was preceded by great concern and disorder when Sida terminated a large number of agreements, which affected around 2,000 partners in 90 countries worldwide who work for precisely human rights, women's rights, and climate and environment. The dialogue in connection with the transition was, to say the least, deficient. Now, the organizations have been informed about who can apply for funds, but many questions and much uncertainty remain. This is not an example of effective aid work.

There are several question marks in the strategy for civil society. Civil society risks being tied closer to the government and in that way losing some of its independence and autonomy, which would be extremely unfortunate. Civil society must be allowed to act in its own right, even if it may be critical of the government's policies on certain points.

The strategy also states that the funds may not be used for influence, information, or lobbying work directed towards non-ODA countries. Aid shall therefore not be able to go towards influence in non-aid countries. This shows that the government does not understand how modern rights and democracy work is conducted. For example, a climate agreement would not exist if we had not had cooperation, influence work, and dialogue between different actors in the EU and Sweden. We would not have had democracy in Guatemala without the international cooperation in support of the democratic forces.

It is also regrettable that the government insists that it should only be possible to disburse funds in a single step, except in exceptional cases. Many times, it is completely necessary with more than one step to be able to reach local or particularly vulnerable organizations. It may, for example, require a larger regional partner or another party for the money to end up in the right place and be of the greatest possible benefit. I am also critical of the fact that the government risks undermining a number of smaller aid organizations through the requirement that at least 15 percent of the funds must be collected by the organization itself.

In addition to the funds for aid decreasing, the government has since previously removed the information support. This means that the possibility to scrutinize what Swedish aid money is used for becomes smaller. The possibilities for a broad public debate on aid are being restricted, and knowledge about Swedish aid is decreasing. The information support to Swedish aid organizations should be restored. Sweden needs a strong civil society that can critically scrutinize the government's decisions and contribute to expertise, analyses, debate, and engagement.

The government has also decided to cut the state financial support that for almost a hundred years has been given to Swedish organizations working for peace and disarmament. This occurs at a time when the security situation is more strained than it has been in a long time and large and decisive security policy decisions are being made. During 2023, the support amounted to just over 20 million kronor distributed among 18 organizations. In a security policy context, this is a relatively small sum, but it is completely crucial for the organizations concerned and should naturally be restored.

Trade union assistance is also of crucial importance for combating injustices and countering the exploitation of workers worldwide. Trade unions can contribute resources and support to affected workers and help with the reconstruction of local communities and labor markets. Trade union assistance promotes democracy, social justice, and society as a whole. It is a solidarity between workers that everyone benefits from. A more equal world, with more people in work and good working conditions, is a safer world for everyone. It is in Sweden's interest to expand trade union assistance, not the other way around.

I move for approval of reservation number 2 and reservation number 5.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is just as exciting every time the left-wing parties are up and debating aid. It is about an inexhaustible source of tax money that is to finance the entire long list of things they want to do. To prioritize when it comes to tax funds is also to ensure that we hit the mark more accurately.

I have a question for Member Johnsson Fornarve. The Member is aware that there was criticism from the EBA and the Swedish National Audit Office regarding the previous aid system. It was not effective, and money went to organizations that did not live up to the counter-requirements that Sweden sets for paying out money. There was a lot of criticism regarding how all the different intermediaries and transactions caused the money not to reach its destination but instead got stuck in the system. I would like to hear if the Member does not think it is important that tax money is handled in as effective a way as possible and that one ensures there is transparency so that one can follow up and ensure that this is truly handled in the way it is intended.

I would also like to point out that investments in girls and women and SRHR is one of the main areas in the government's aid strategy. I wonder if Johnsson Fornarve does not think that this is a good prioritization because one cannot take everything, even though one obviously sees that there are needs in many areas.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the questions!

Of course, tax revenue must be used in the right way. And of course, we must ensure that the money intended for aid also reaches its destination – it must not disappear into any black holes or into corruption. But Sweden has received very good grades in international comparisons when it comes to international aid. Then, of course, there are always things that can be changed and improved. We naturally would like to see that happen. But overall, the aid has functioned and reached its destination – very much indicates that.

Also, the civil society's money has arrived. Their own reports show this clearly and plainly.

When it comes to the cuts in aid, we see that it is possible to allocate 1 percent of GDP to aid if one has those ambitions. In the Left Party's shadow budget, we do that. We allocate 1 percent of GDP to aid. It is clear that it becomes more difficult if one prioritizes lowering taxes for the very richest instead of things like aid, but in our budget, we do not do that but instead prioritize aid.

It is good that the government includes that equality is a core value and that funds are allocated to SRHR, but I miss the overarching wording that equality shall permeate all aid activities. That wording has been removed. It is not included, and the feminist foreign policy has been abolished. It sends the wrong signals to the rest of the world.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! That it should be 1 percent of GNI does not guarantee a certain economic level. Under previous red-green governments, aid has been down to under 0.9 or 0.8 percent of GNI. As I showed in my previous calculation example: If you give 100 kronor but only 40 kronor arrive, it is better to have a system where you give 70 kronor and 60 reach. It is to make a system more efficient. More money does not guarantee increased quality or that you reach with the measures you want, especially not if there are many levels with many actors and money that disappears along the way. The money goes to administration and bureaucracy instead of to those who are in need.

Absolutely, this government prioritizes tax cuts for broad segments of the Swedish taxpayers. It is to put Swedish interests first. When we do that, Sweden also becomes a country where more people work and where we can strengthen our own welfare but also have the means to give a lot of money and grants for aid to help other countries.

My question is finally: What would Lotta Johnsson Fornarves system look like to achieve more effective aid, without just saying a figure? A figure actually says nothing. How does Vänsterpartiet want the aid system to look so that Swedish tax money reaches those in need in different countries?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The aid has, in large part, functioned well previously. This is shown by international surveys. Swedish aid receives incredibly high grades in international surveys. We have also seen how the aid that has gone through civil society organizations has reached its destination. This is clearly and plainly evident from the reports, which are very carefully made. Then there are always parts that can be improved, but in large part, we have had a well-functioning aid.

I believe there is a smear campaign against the previous aid that does not correspond with reality.

How then do we see that the aid should work? The aid shall go to the poorest people in the world. The aid must also take place on the recipient's terms and not from Swedish interests. We want half of the aid to be earmarked for women and girls and that 10 percent shall go to SRHR, for example. We know that if one invests in women and girls, one develops entire societies. It is incredibly important.

We also want to see that civil society receives strong support, so that they can continue their important work to support democracy movements and movements for human rights and so on around the world. That is also very important. But we must have aid that is not tied but stems from poverty reduction and supporting and helping the very poorest people in the world.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is impossible in a debate on international aid to ignore what has happened in the world since September–October last year, when the motions we are discussing in the report were written. The world looked completely different then than it does today. Above all, a completely different situation prevailed when it came to aid in the world. It was before the Trump administration took office in January and immediately choked off support for WHO. A few weeks later, USAID's operations, which accounted for over 40 percent of all aid in the world, were frozen for review. Just a couple of weeks ago, the announcement came that 83 percent of all USAID contracts would be terminated. With a stroke of a pen, 93 percent of all interventions there disappeared in that way.

Some of these funds consist of the 120 million kronor that Sida has paid to USAID for joint projects. Of course, Sweden must do everything to have those funds repaid, so that they can go to the projects they were intended for, including aid to farmers to climate-adapt their crops.

The USA's actions are not an isolated phenomenon, although they are extreme in terms of magnitude, both in absolute money and as a percentage of GDP. The Netherlands will gradually reduce the aid budget by 30 percent, Belgium by 25 percent, and France by 37 percent. The United Kingdom is reducing its aid by 40 percent. Such large cuts in international aid will not go unnoticed, on the contrary. It is a dangerous path to take. It is purely counterproductive, I want to assert.

The world is interconnected, Mr. Speaker. This has been shown with all desired clarity, not least by the pandemic, wars, conflicts, and climate change in recent years. In Kenya, which I visited in February, We Effect teaches methods that help farmers make their agriculture more resilient to climate change. Such good examples need to be spread and implemented in more places, so that countries become self-sufficient and so that people living in the local communities become less vulnerable.

Bangladesh is one of the countries that is most vulnerable to climate change. The cyclones are coming more and more frequently. They are becoming increasingly stronger and submerge ever larger areas in the densely populated country. The Red Cross's cyclone warning system has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but the farmers' lands are nevertheless flooded by seawater, which causes fewer crops to grow on the fields. The salty seawater has penetrated into the groundwater and triggered chemical processes that release iron and arsenic in the bedrock and make the drinking water hazardous to health. Large numbers of men have headed to the city of 24 million Dhaka and other cities to find a livelihood but leave women and children at home to try to farm the land as best they can. The women need to walk ever longer distances to fetch water. As in all situations of scarcity, conflicts arise, where already vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities and Christians are hit hardest.

Wateraid's interventions, which use locally adapted methods to purify unusable water and provide villages and towns with drinking water, are directly life-saving. Furthermore, it enables people to stay in their homes and in this way counters migration.

To this, Mr. Speaker, comes the security policy situation that has worsened after Russia's war of invasion in Ukraine, combined with the new administration in the USA, which carries a rhetoric that the rules-based world order is passé and that old alliances and international agreements are something one can ignore.

When other countries tend to finance their rearmament with aid cuts, Sweden stands firm. We do this not only because aid has an intrinsic moral value, but also because it is the other side of the same coin: to promote peace and security for both states and people.

Mr. Speaker! It is now extraordinarily important that Sweden, together with the EU and other like-minded countries, analyzes how to, to some extent, fill the most strategically significant gaps that have emerged, not only humanitarily but also from a security policy perspective. When the West withdraws, the risk is obviously great, as several speakers have pointed out, that Russia and China are quick to take over the influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Therefore, I am proud today that Sweden has shown a different path. The announcement from the Government and the coalition parties, which was the subject of a press conference yesterday, is that we are building up our country's security without the world's poorest and most vulnerable needing to pay.

The aid budget that was presented last autumn, with 53 billion kronor per year during the period 2026–2028, remains unchanged. This is entirely in line with the agreement made at Tidö in the autumn of 2022 regarding long-term, transparent, and effective aid where the rules of the game are clear and where the role of civil society is strengthened. Even in times of great change, it should be noted, the appropriation for the civil society strategy is constant, without any reductions, contrary to what one might think when listening to some members here in the debate.

The reform agenda for aid that the government adopted in December 2023, with the subtitle "Global challenges in a new era", points out the direction moving forward.

Instead of 400 goals without internal prioritization, which made the aid impossible to manage or monitor, there are now clear focus areas. This is of great help in the process we face now, when other countries are groping for points of reference.

The thematic priorities constitute what the government describes as Swedish interests. For those listeners who do not know what they are, I will provide a recapitulation here:

Poverty reduction through job creation, trade and education

Improved health for the most vulnerable

Promote freedom and combat oppression

Increased and more efficient climate aid

Strengthen the freedom and empowerment of women and girls

Strengthened synergies between aid and migration policy

Strengthened humanitarian support to save lives and alleviate distress.

These are well-considered and balanced thematic priorities for which there is great acceptance.

Mr. Speaker! Through the work that the Swedish government has already made significant progress in, we have a head start in the efficiency work that many countries are now entering. We can take the lead in the international discussions on how the world's most vulnerable fellow human beings should not be left to their fate but should be given the prerequisites for a better and safer existence.

With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the speech!

The Chairman mentions and rightly criticizes the substantial cut in American aid. We fully agree with that criticism.

The government has abolished the feminist foreign policy but says at the same time that equality is a core value. It is difficult to take seriously when the government reduces the financial support for equality and SRHR.

Both UN Women and UNFPA, which perform incredibly important work for SRHR, that is sexual and reproductive health and rights, are receiving reduced support – this at a time when Sweden should instead take the lead and stand up for aid to girls and women as well as for the rights of hbtq persons, especially against the background that Trump has stopped all American aid and is attacking SRHR.

The lives of millions of people are at stake. Women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people are particularly hard hit. Trump has reintroduced the Mexico City policy, which prohibits aid from the USA to organizations that inform about or provide abortion with their own funds, even in countries where abortion is legal. The policy also affects access to contraceptives, maternal care, HIV prevention, and youth clinics, leading to more unsafe abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and deaths.

What strategy does Sweden have to meet the attacks from the USA, particularly regarding equality and SRHR?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for important questions!

I completely agree that we are facing a very serious situation. I touched upon that in my speech.

The massive cuts to the aid that USAID previously provided but is now withdrawing cannot be covered by Sweden alone. There is no possibility whatsoever of doing so. But that was why I spoke about the need for us to join forces with like-minded countries and together discuss which are the most strategic areas.

Already now, the discussions are moving in exactly the direction that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve points out. Among the most serious is the withdrawn support for precisely women's and girls' rights and opportunities and for sexual and reproductive health and rights, but also for things such as HIV prevention, polio vaccination programs, and so on. None of us want to see an AIDS epidemic like the one in the 80s or a new polio epidemic, but here all good forces need to unite.

I mean that the priorities that Sweden has already made in the form of the strategic thematic priorities can be helpful in this work. We have already done the work of narrowing down and focusing on what is absolutely most important in a critical situation where the money does not suffice.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the answers!

I completely agree that it is now incredibly important that Sweden takes the lead and cooperates with like-minded countries to find a strategy to counter these drastic cuts. It is incredibly important to save lives and, not least, for support for women and girls.

The large cuts in US aid particularly affect women and girls and LGBTQ+ people. If the support is not resumed, 34 million people risk being left without life-saving humanitarian aid. That is an incredibly large number of people and is extremely serious.

In this time when equality, LGBTQ+ rights and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden really needs to pull out all the stops and act as a counterweight to at least curb this. I understand that Sweden cannot cover the entire deficit, but we can do a lot to cooperate and make it happen.

I want to interject that access to clean water and basic sanitation is also an important equality issue. We believe 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, because we know that investments in equality benefit the entire social development.

Does the member agree with this? Are you prepared to significantly increase support for gender equality and SRHR?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and I agree on very much in this.

However, I do not want to stand here and say that we should allocate half of the aid to women's and girls' rights, even though I am well aware of both these sayings: Give a man a fish, and you give him food for the day; teach him to fish, and you give him sustenance for the future. Educate a woman, and you educate an entire village.

It has very strategic effects, but I do not dare to claim that it is specifically half that is to be allocated for girls and women.

I mean that what we call Swedish interests, that is to say what we have summarized in the thematic priorities, all weigh heavily in their own way. If one disturbs the whole, if one removes, for example, democracy and human rights, it may perhaps get an unfortunate tilt in another direction. We need to have climate support. We need to have support for girls' and women's rights. But we also need to have healthcare for all.

That is precisely why we need to have unity, both nationally and internationally, to manage the difficult situation that arises when so many countries, with the USA at the forefront, withdraw large parts of their aid.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for a very good speech!

I could probably stand behind most of what was said. The world is changing very quickly, and it was liberating to hear that we must do more and that the government's representatives actually show that one also pushes in that direction. I wish all the best. It can probably be needed.

Member of the Board Brunegård also mentioned that earlier in the aid, there were a lot of goals without internal order and how poor the management of this was. I would say that it is part of the disparagement of the previous aid that the government engages in, and I hope that we avoid that.

My question concerns what Gudrun Brunegård listed, i.e., the new focus areas in the reform agenda. The big new thing is that emphasis is placed on trade and entrepreneurship. That is really not bad. Aid cannot be the solution to every country's development, but this must be done in the right way for it to reach its goal. Gudrun Brunegård and I have been on very many trips where we have seen examples of incredibly good Swedish aid, where people have been lifted out of poverty in the classic way and been able to be given a livelihood.

When it comes to the government's reform agenda, we still have not quite received an answer on how this corporate focus will contribute. We have the guarantees, of course – they had our government too – but are there more examples of how you intend to work with this so that it benefits the right people?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the kind words! I know that we have a strong common commitment to these issues. I believe we share that with everyone sitting here in the chamber today.

When it comes to aid and development through entrepreneurship, I also want to emphasize the other parts that are included on the same line, namely job creation, trade, and education. If a wealthy, well-educated, and well-situated middle class enriches itself and gets greater development opportunities, that does not help the poor out in the villages. We really need to work on all levels.

It is very good if countries in the third world – for example with the help of Swedish support, climate aid and know-how – get the opportunity to develop know-how when it comes to water purification technology, solar cells and so on to move away from a fossil dependency. But in parallel with that, we must also work with the poor people who need to have an education to learn to count and write, so that they are not cheated when they sell their agricultural products at the market or when they are going to export their coffee to a buyer, for example.

These parts go hand in hand. This must be done in parallel, and I know that people are well aware of that even at UD. We have had those conversations there. This is, therefore, something that is being worked on.

Just as the member pointed out, there is an opportunity for microloans. In Kenya, we also saw that people had taken out microloans to be able to finance the purchase of better processing methods for, for example, coffee cultivation.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the explanation!

So it is about teaching people to be better in their business, if I understand it all correctly. That is at least one component. It sounds very good, because what provides the best conditions is precisely to strengthen individuals where they are and to be able to work locally.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to ask a question about something Lotta Johnsson Fornarve also touched upon slightly in her question. I know that Gudrun Brunegård is, and the government also claims to be, very much in favor of increased equality in the budget and for working more for women's and girls' rights and opportunities. Nevertheless, cuts are being made to support for women's organizations and those who work with a focus on this, such as UN Women and UNFPA.

How is it that the Christian Democrats can stand behind such an economic distribution in the remaining aid?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up question.

I want to assert that things can happen that, in hindsight, one might see that one perhaps could have done differently. Immediately after the government had taken office and one saw the colossal needs in Ukraine, one did everything possible to gather together pots that were unused and had not been paid out. Much went to vulnerable women and girls in the field in Ukraine, who for example were exposed to sexual violence and similar things, or who needed to manage their livelihood at all, when their men were in the field. Much of that money has also been returned to UNFPA.

In the process before us, I see that it is also very important that we support girls and women. It is one of the thematic priorities, and it must therefore be reflected in what comes out once Sida has also made its allocations. It is therefore about governance at several different levels.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Civil society and civil society organizations are more important than they have been in a very long time. When chaos spreads across the world, it is precisely civil society that must take a large part of the fight for people's freedom and rights, the rules-based world order, and the principles of the rule of law. In Sweden, we fortunately have a strong, well-organized civil society that has a strong voice and also possesses enormous experience and knowledge. This can be seen, not least, when it comes to the issue of Ukraine.

It is no coincidence that there is a uniquely high level of support for Ukraine in Sweden, and that the support has existed since day one of Russia's full-scale invasion. There was not just a support, but the well-oiled organizational machinery started immediately. Together with municipalities and authorities, they ensured both to send aid to Ukraine urgently and to receive the refugees who arrived in the first wave.

Our civil society ensures that we as Swedes have a high level of knowledge about the world around us, while the organizations simultaneously have an extensive contact network across the entire world and expert knowledge within each specific area as a result.

In aid efforts, there is close cooperation between civil society – the local on-site and, for example, a Swedish organization – and the UN as well as authorities. This is more important than ever.

That is why I view with some concern the nationalization that is now occurring of the aid, i.e., that the government wants organizations in the recipient countries to be given the opportunity to receive the money directly from the agency Sida to a greater extent. It is said that one wants to reduce the number of transaction links so that more aid reaches the destination.

It is a very good ambition, but it also means that a part of the work that until now has been handled by civil society organizations here in Sweden will no longer do so, but will instead be handled by officials at Sida.

The result is that the work that previously led to networking between Swedish engaged and local forces at the recipients now, to a greater extent, risks being limited to a civil servant at a Swedish authority. Besides being much more costly, it damages the expertise in Swedish society, and the contact paths between donor and recipient are limited. How is that positive? We still want increased engagement and more contact paths – which are also cheaper, in light of the government's will to strengthen Swedish interests?

In the consideration, it is seen as stated that having a direct contact with Sida instead of going through a Swedish organization is something to be preferred. It is clear: If it concerns a relatively large, well-organized organization with several employees, it works perfectly. But if you are a small, local organization, it is a great advantage to have a Swedish contact who can also help with applications, experiences, contact networks with other countries, and specialist knowledge within respective areas. For an organization that, for example, works with human rights in an authoritarian society, it can also be both intimidating and directly dangerous to have contact with an agency in another country.

It has also been raised in the discussion during recent years that the umbrella organizations that today distribute aid constitute, in many cases, an unnecessary transaction link. So one can see it that way – or one can also see it as an efficient and relatively inexpensive way to distribute aid with the help of people with deep knowledge. At least I, as a liberal, approve of such a thing. I think it is a bit strange that a government that calls itself conservative and partially liberal is now working to nationalize things that were managed excellently by civil society.

Think if one were to start counting the number of hours that voluntary forces spend on their commitment in civil society organizations working with aid! This applies to both forces here in Sweden and those deployed on site, locally. Also think if one were to start valuing the fact that there are many in Sweden who engage in what happens outside Sweden's borders! It is about knowledge that is even more important in the new world order that is now beginning to be created.

This brings me to the next question, namely this matter of 15 percent self-financing. For an organization to be able to receive state support, there must be other sources of funding. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and it sounds very reasonable. It is perhaps even a rather low figure. But we must also remember that it sometimes concerns smaller organizations with a few employees where the major work is handled entirely voluntarily. This is furthermore occurring in a situation where the communication support, which might be needed in order to find the other, external funders, has been cut.

One way to solve this could be to keep the requirement but calculate the value of the voluntary work that is actually performed by many and deduct it from the 15 percent. That would probably help. It does require some administration, which also costs, so the question is what is simplest here.

We can now observe that the process that has preceded the major reform of aid has led to thousands of projects being terminated prematurely. We must also not ignore the fact that the government as a whole has a clear direction where aid has de facto been deprioritized. I am not speaking about us who are here in the chamber, but about the whole. It emerged, at least, with all desirable clarity when the autumn budget was presented and the government proudly showed how much could be saved on aid and allocated to other things.

This is being done at a time when many countries are following the same path. The USA has literally slaughtered its aid, and conflicts are increasing. In these times, aid is more important than ever. Aid reduces poverty. It increases security both locally and in the world at large. Aid supports democratic movements, increased equality, and economic empowerment. For Sweden and Europe today, aid also means influence in the world, which is something we must be very careful about. In that context, Swedish civil society has a crucial key role, so let us help them carry that role!

Finally, considering what has been raised here earlier regarding the size of the aid: There is a difference between 0.91 and 0.68 percent. We shall, of course, strive to increase efficiency regardless. Let us take our responsibility and restore the aid to 1 percent!

I move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation number 3 and furthermore wish to draw the Chamber's attention to the specific statement we have in the report.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Anna Lasses, for an important contribution to this debate!

I didn't actually request the floor to confront you or debate, Anna Lasses, so you can relax. It was more to make a correction or addition. I simply don't know if there might have been some misunderstanding.

When it comes to civil society support, the Swedish aid organizations are completely central. According to the strategy, the Swedish organizations shall seek funds via Sida for 85 percent of the aid in order to, in turn, be able to cooperate with their sister organizations in the recipient country. We both know how important the contact, the long-term perspective, and the loyalty that exists between sister organizations in different countries are. The Government has also seen in various evaluations that the support that goes through civil society organizations has much greater accuracy and involves less bureaucracy. It also means less risk of corruption precisely because one has this close relationship to one another.

What confused me a little was that Anna Lasses spoke about that one should now apply for a lot directly to the authority. According to the strategy, 85 percent shall therefore go via the Swedish organizations and then to the recipient country. International organizations shall be able to apply for a maximum of 8 percent to Sida, and a maximum of 8 percent shall be able to go via the foreign authority. It often concerns organizations that already have a cooperation and which perhaps are also included in the previous cooperation.

I mostly just wanted to leave that comment.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Gudrun Brunegård! We truly share the commitment here, so we do not need to debate that. I also know that the commitment to civil organizations is very great, so I absolutely do not question that.

With this said, there has indeed been a discussion about the umbrella organizations that we have in Sweden, and there is also a desire to remove the transaction link. There are, of course, organizations that are positive about this – there always are when a change is being made – just as there are those who now see that this is going to be very tough. I hear what is being said, absolutely, but I would still claim that it is heading in this direction.

Then I really hope that it turns out exactly as Gudrun Brunegård envisions. Let us wait and see how it becomes! But I am worried, and I think it is strange that a bourgeois government wants to replace civil society with state administrators. That is what I actually think.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the clarification on where the concern lies!

I will say that the civil society organizations that seek assistance directly from a foreign agency are often organizations that are well known through very long-standing relations. Perhaps one also has a Swedish counterpart in Sweden and in that country, but for a certain project, one makes an application in the country in question.

I do not think the member needs to be so worried about this. It is not about any nationalization. Even today, some funds are conveyed via the foreign agencies – it has been possible to apply directly there – so it is not any huge change that is occurring. It is established that no more than 8 percent of the total civil society support shall go that way.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will, of course, follow this process, and I hope it turns out exactly as the member says. My concern remains, however. We can already see that a number of small, local organizations have lost their support as a result of the process that has taken place. So that is actually the case.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The world is changing at a rapid pace right before our eyes. The rules-based world order is being challenged, the climate crisis is deepening, authoritarian forces are growing, and humanitarian catastrophes are almost piling up on top of one another. This should be a time to increase the pace of work for sustainable development and peace, but Sweden's government is in many and many ways going in the opposite direction.

When the needs in the world increase, the government chooses to back down. When democracy is threatened, one chooses to remain silent. When global warming increases, one chooses to increase emissions. When security policy tensions increase, one chooses to reduce aid. What does the government actually think we will gain from that? Why should we take large steps back when we would have gained so much more by stepping forward?

The world is currently moving backwards when it comes to democratic development. Only 29 percent of the world's population lives in a democracy, and 42 countries have in recent years restricted their citizens' civil liberties. We are back at 1985 levels when it comes to access to democratic rights, i.e., at the same levels as before the end of the Cold War.

In this new reality, Sweden needs to show leadership and stand behind human rights activists and democracy fighters in the struggle for freedom and justice. Instead, this government has eroded trust in Sweden internationally. People speak of efficiency and control, but what we see is rather centralization, uncertainty, and a lost trust. Behind the figures of imprisoned human rights activists in Belarus and murdered trade unionists and environmental activists in South America, there are real life stories. Their vulnerability is real. It is people who are paying the price for this government's reforms.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish model for development cooperation, where the work is done with civil society organizations on the ground, has long been one of our strengths. The Swedish popular movements carry with them values, long-term perspective, and deep networks. They build relationships where authorities do not reach. They know how to work in a context-sensitive, inclusive manner, and with local anchoring.

The government, with its reform agenda, has terminated agreements on short notice, removed information support, and created a limbo that remains for the entire Swedish aid sector. It is not streamlining; it is destroying something that has functioned very well. This is happening, strangely enough, in the name of efficiency.

Aid must never be seen as a luxury expense in the budget. It is money that we have a historical and moral obligation to invest for a better world for all, to reach the goals in Agenda 2030 – which Sweden stands behind – as well as for the fight for justice and democracy. It is also a security policy investment.

The list of countries reducing their aid to pay for military defense can be long. Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands are some of those on it. Now that Trump has slaughtered American aid, we are looking out over a humanitarian abyss. Decades of development successes that have secured democracy, welfare, jobs, and new markets are being lost. If we do not reverse that trend, we face an elusive human suffering in the developing countries but also a social and economic collapse that will also affect Sweden's security and development negatively.

Building peaceful and stable societies is the best insurance against war, refugee crises, and uncertainty. It is not an alternative to spending money on defense, but rather an investment in our future. Aid that strengthens democratic institutions, combats corruption, and protects human rights reduces the risk of future wars, refugee flows, and humanitarian disasters. Peace work is, at the very least, vital, both in itself and because armed conflicts tend to spread if they are not addressed in time.

Cutting back on development cooperation is to turn a blind eye to this reality and, in the long run, create larger problems that we will have to handle later, at a significantly higher price. Listen now, Moderaterna! For every dollar spent on peacebuilding and aid, 103 dollars are saved in costs for disaster response. It is efficiency.

Poverty, inequality, and climate crises fuel conflicts. When the international community withdraws, a vacuum is left that is quickly filled by authoritarian regimes, criminal networks, and extremist groups. Therefore, it is so serious that Western aid is decreasing all over Europe, in the USA, and here in Sweden. It does not only mean that schools close, that water pumps fall silent, and that women's protection is weakened, but it also means that other forces – not infrequently Russia or China – step in and buy influence where democracy would have stood.

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis must not be forgotten in the aid debate. On the contrary, we must understand that our international development cooperation is one of our most important channels for meeting the consequences of the climate crisis. We are rushing, literally, towards tipping points that we will not be able to back away from. If we are hit by them, they will cause immense suffering. Droughts, floods, and fires hit the poorest hardest, who have contributed the least to climate change.

Swedish climate aid has yielded concrete results. Harvests have been saved, communities have built up preparedness, and children have been able to continue going to school, and this has happened despite climate disasters. But now this work risks backing up. Aid for climate adaptation is being cut while we see that the UN's goals for climate financing are not being met. Sweden could lead the way, but instead, the government is dragging its feet.

We must also not forget equality. Equality is not only a matter of rights but also a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable development, democracy, and peace. Today we see how women's rights are being restricted and threatened in large parts of the world. In wars, in climate crises, and in the wake of conflicts, gender-based violence is increasing, and it is not random. It is systematic and often sanctioned by power structures where women lack influence.

It does not stop there. Women's rights to their bodies, to education, and to economic freedom are being eroded. Women's rights are being questioned by men like Trump, while countries like Sweden are cutting back on their development aid. It is a double blow against women.

To reverse this development, courage is required. Sweden has been a pioneer country, but it is no longer. The feminist foreign and development policy that Miljöpartiet helped build up has been dismantled. The government has unfortunately cut into the equality work and lowered the ambitions in the regulatory letters to the agencies. It is a betrayal of Agenda 2030, of Sweden's global reputation, and not least of the women.

We must return to a policy that puts women's and girls' rights at the center, strengthens women as agents of change, combats gender-based violence, defends the right to sexual and reproductive health, and gives women the power to participate fully in all parts of society, from peace negotiations to the business sector.

But it is not enough to talk about women. We must also listen to them. It is women-led organizations, especially the local ones, that know best how to get through. Here we see once again the invaluable role of civil society.

Mr. Speaker! The government is not fulfilling its task. Instead of cutting back, one should protect the aid that made Sweden a respected actor in the world. It is about giving civil society long-term perspective and trust and seeing the connections between global justice, climate resilience, and our own security.

The development is dark, but Miljöpartiet defends the aid. This applies to both the one percent goal and that the aid should be designed to support people living in poverty and oppression, not based on short-term budget priorities or domestic political interests, which the government sometimes signals even if it says it with something other than words.

The Green Party stands up for strong aid, for civil society, for the climate, for women's rights and for those people who every day fight for democracy, equality, gender equality and peace, often with their lives at stake. It is our duty, and it is our promise.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Alm Ericson happens to be an unusually wise environmentalist, and I can agree with a good deal of what she said. However, we have different views on how to achieve, for example, sustainability in aid and climate.

What is so fantastically good about the government's aid reform is that one is now improving and developing the aid and that climate aid is actually increasing. The government also prioritizes support for democracy activists and work for human rights and the principles of the rule of law. As far as that goes, we should be able to agree that the government's priorities are good.

Parts of the Committee on Foreign Affairs were recently in South Africa, to which Sweden admittedly provides no aid. Sweden, as has been said, cannot alone compensate for the loss from USAID or cover all the interventions that would need to be made in many places in the world. The EU has, however, recently earmarked 4 billion in climate aid to South Africa, and in that case, it is important that South Africa can convert these funds into concrete climate-improving measures.

Can the member give me a concrete example of how the previous government's priorities and concrete projects for sustainability and climate differed from the current government's? If I remember correctly, the member was a state secretary and worked with aid issues.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Katarina Tolgfors for the question.

I cannot say that the money this government spends is better or worse prioritized when it comes to the climate than our government's was. However, the total has been reduced. When it comes to climate aid, the government is primarily cutting back on climate adaptation. I know that the government is putting more into climate funds, and that is pleasing and good. However, the money for adaptation is decreasing, and it hits the people who are in the greatest vulnerability the hardest.

The international community wants there to be a 50–50 split between reduced emissions and adaptation. In many developing countries, the emissions are not so large, but as I said in my speech, there is a need to invest heavily in adaptation there.

What I mean by that the government is cutting back is that one is cutting back on the total. I know that Katarina Tolgfors usually speaks about increased efficiency, but we have not seen any figures on that. On the other hand, several international evaluators have stated that the previous government's aid was very efficient.

And by the government cutting back on climate adaptation, the most vulnerable will become even more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

I understand that neither Sweden nor the EU can compensate for the large loss from USAID. But Sweden could do more, and we think it is important to point that out.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us stick to the concept of sustainability, which is a hallmark of Miljöpartiet. I sat in the government inquiry that looked at the Swedish interventions in Afghanistan over 20 years. It was for a long time one of the countries to which Sweden gave the most aid. Since we withdrew from Afghanistan, we have to search almost with a candle and a lantern for the sustainable and lasting results of many years of interventions and aid from, among others, Sweden.

Do not the priorities and opportunities for the recipient country to actually take in aid have a great significance? The left side often talks about money and figures, for example 1 percent of GNI, but it is about prioritizing the right interventions, isn't it? How would MP Alm Ericson want to prioritize in the total aid? We heard earlier that someone wanted 50 percent to go to girls and women. What do MP Alm Ericson's priorities for the total aid look like?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Katarina Tolgfors says that it is the left side that wants 1 percent of GDP. In that case, the entire OECD is the left side, and I do not know if that is consistent with the truth. But we can discuss that. The OECD says that 0.7 percent is a minimum but wants 1 percent. We are, therefore, on the OECD's side.

When it comes to sustainability, research shows that it is the Miljöpartiets policy that must be pursued to reduce emissions and so on.

Afghanistan is in many ways an incredibly sad example. Obviously, there must be the capacity to receive support and projects, and under the Taliban regime, these conditions are lacking.

Sweden's long-term aid to and commitment to Afghanistan was not about support for the state but about supporting a population that was in acute vulnerability. I do not consider the money and the commitment to have been wasted. One focus area in Afghanistan was health and maternity clinics in order to be able to help girls and women and to provide girls and women with education, and the women who survived childbirth, which they otherwise would have died from, still live just like the girls and women who received education.

What we should do now is try to find ways to strengthen a change for freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, not just give up.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! After having listened to the previous exchange of remarks, I shall begin by stating that the left wing in Sweden is quite broad. Since both the Liberals and the Christian Democrats want 1 percent for aid, we also belong to it.

Mr. Speaker! USAID has accounted for approximately 40 percent of the aid in the world. The need was infinite even before the withdrawal, but now the need is infinite plus those 40 percent. Those who listened to math lessons know that there is nothing that is more than infinite, but since it was infinite before and it is even more infinite now, there is demonstrably something that is more than infinite. That is why it is so important to prioritize.

Mr. Speaker! Resources are one thing. We are for 1 percent. There are others in our coalition who are for 1 percent. At the same time, we can observe that the needs are endless. Then one must prioritize. Therefore, resources and content are somewhat different things.

For us, it has been important with the content of the reform agenda that the government has developed and the content of the aid policy that the government pursues. It is therefore why we have prioritized to ensure that several of the thematic areas that we have worked with for many years, regardless of government constellation, are included.

There is a focus on children, SRHR, equality, education, climate, LGBTQ, and democracy. For the Liberals, the democracy issue is perhaps the most central in aid. If one achieves democracy and freedom – free people, a free world, and free economies – quite a lot of the other parts resolve themselves. There are no free democracies with free economies where one cannot afford to work with the other parts that aid money is to go to. That is why this is so incredibly important, besides the fact that it is about people's fundamental rights.

That is why, when we collaborated with the Social Democrats in the January Agreement, we prioritized having democracy assistance high on the agenda and pushed through the democracy initiative that was made then. And that is why we, in the constellation we are now part of – the Tidö Agreement – have continued to prioritize democracy assistance. This has been absolutely decisive for the Liberals' participation in the reforming of the aid and in the government. It has been an important starting point for us to prioritize democracy and Sweden's footprint for democracy in the world.

Mr. Speaker! If one travels around and makes study visits to different places in the world where aid money is received, one can see USAID signs. At least, one could previously. USAID is much better than we are at marketing their aid. There are usually bronze plaques where USAID is engraved so that everyone knows it is they who have provided the money.

Now a vacuum arises where there is a risk that countries such as China, or for that matter China's partner countries, step in and try to fill the vacuum to gain a foothold in the countries. But countries like China are not there to spread democracy, but on the contrary, they are there to spread their authoritarian view on how the world should be governed. Therefore, it is now extra important to continue on the path taken with the priorities that the government has established, where democracy is an important part, so that we can fill the vacuum and defend democracy in the world.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we, of course, stand behind the overall priority which is also crucial in the field of aid, namely to continue to support Ukraine as much as we can and for as long as it is required.

International aid

(Applause)

(cont. § 8)

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