International development aid

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates' and the government's starting point for Swedish aid is based on a vision that every country should be able to stand on its own feet. The goal must be that every country, by its own power and through its own work, should be able to develop its own tax base in order to be able to finance central welfare services such as schools and health care. Therefore, aid must not lock countries into a dependency that undermines this endeavor.

Looking back at the aid policy of recent decades, there is a great deal to question. For a long time, aid contributed to the implementation of a harmful planned economy policy in many developing countries. When the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, for example, reviewed Swedish aid to Tanzania in 2016, it concluded that it had contributed to reducing poverty only to a very limited extent, even though Tanzania is one of Sweden's absolute largest recipient countries of development aid of all time.

Madam Speaker! Against this background, the government is now carrying out the largest reform of Swedish aid ever, while simultaneously continuing the work that was initiated by the previous Alliance government in 2007-2014. The previous one percent target has been removed and replaced by a three-year aid framework of 56 billion kronor per year. After this initial three-year framework, the hope is that the budgeting principle will transition to what is normal in other areas, namely that an aid bill is presented every year, which is reviewed by the government and the Riksdag every four years.

The one percent goal was an outdated idea that was more about measuring our own generosity than measuring the effect for recipients of Swedish aid. The payment goal that followed Sweden's growth created a volatility that hindered long-term planning because increases, and in that regard also decreases, in GDP had an unpredictable impact on the aid budget. This led to a planning problem for being able to achieve a long-term and purposeful aid policy. Among other things, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis stated: Aid policy should focus on what one does and achieves. Expected results should justify the size of the appropriations. There are many examples of aid appropriations sometimes having become larger than our ability to design and implement effective interventions.

The current three-year framework is, as stated, 56 billion kronor per year, or 0.88 percent of GNP in 2023. This can be compared with the Social Democrats, who in their budget allocate 0.91 percent of GNP to aid. 0.88 percent of GNP still means that we continue to be at the absolute top internationally in terms of how much Sweden gives in aid.

In comparison with our neighboring countries, we also rank high - in Finland, it is at 0.42 percent of GNI, with a plan for how they can reach 0.7 percent in the long term. Denmark also has the goal of 0.7 percent, and the Norwegian government has, for 2023, lowered the aid framework from 1 percent to 0.75 percent.

Madam Speaker! One problem with aid is that in many cases, one simply does not know where the money is going. In that case, one also cannot measure with certainty the effectiveness of, or for that matter the benefit of, Swedish aid.

At the same time as we in Sweden come to this insight, a number of aid-dependent countries are also beginning to see their situation differently. One of those who has drawn concrete political conclusions from the aid policy of recent decades is Ghana's president Nana Akufo-Addo. When he met the world press in connection with a state visit in December 2017, he gave the Western world an insight into what a new generation of Africans now sees. He said: Our responsibility is to prepare a roadmap for how we can develop our nations by our own strength. We need to move away from this notion of dependency.

The message was that vital social services, such as health care and education, can no longer depend on the generosity of European taxpayers after sixty years of independence. Instead, he wanted to see a broadened insight that Ghana itself must create ways to be able to finance its own institutions.

At the same time, requirements are increasing that the economic development of developing countries must occur in harmony with today's global climate and environmental ambitions, in order to reduce emissions and achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. This also leads us to the goal of Sweden's international aid: to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. Aid is also central to Sweden's policy for global development and for our contribution to the international implementation of the 17 goals for sustainable development in Agenda 2030, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development, and the Paris Agreement.

Madam Speaker! Now, this debate is about international development aid, but from the Moderaternas point of view, humanitarian aid is probably – and unfortunately – the absolute most important and something that will always be needed.

We shall safeguard the equal value and dignity of all people as it is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and in the European Convention and ensure that these continue to constitute an unwavering principle. Therefore, we Moderates want that humanitarian aid shall continue to be extensive and increase as a total proportion of the aid, both that which is given bilaterally and that which is given multilaterally within the framework of the international humanitarian system.

When it comes to bilateral development aid, we believe that requirements must be set regarding democratic and rule-of-law reforms. States that are heading in the wrong direction politically should not receive Swedish tax money. We simply cannot risk that Swedish tax money goes towards maintaining authoritarian and corrupt regimes.

The bilateral development aid shall also be characterized by a higher degree of orientation towards the business sector than today. This shall be achieved by increasing the proportion of sustainable investments in companies, for example through Swedfund. The investments shall, however, not compete with private capital but be used where they have an added value in relation to the aid's goals.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' proposal in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm and Gustaf Göthberg (both M) agreed.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, member!

The government promises a reform agenda for aid that shall be based on long-term perspective, transparency and efficiency, and that obviously sounds good. But the changes for aid that the government announces involve precisely the opposite: a less efficient aid, a less transparent aid and a less long-term aid.

The large cuts to aid make it less predictable, which hampers long-term perspective and efficiency. Nor is any impact assessment being made of what effects these changes provide. I find that highly noteworthy. The transparency in aid is significantly worsened by the fact that the Riksdag gets less opportunity to review and make proposals regarding aid, because the reform agenda, as I understand it, is to be presented as part of the budget process.

Nor even the civil society organizations have had the opportunity to participate in the process when it comes to the restructuring of the aid. These are organizations that have very long experience and knowledge of how to conduct a long-term and good, effective aid.

The government says it strives for efficiency in aid but does not speak of the international experiences and principles of effective aid - aid that is based on the needs and priorities made by the people who are recipients of it. Instead, the government speaks of aid being guided by entirely different goals, such as various migration policy goals and promoting Swedish exports. It is something that rather feels like a regression to the 70s.

Using aid to achieve migration policy objectives is a departure from the basic principles of aid and conflicts with the principles for effective aid. It would be interesting to hear the member's response to this.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johnsson Fornarve for these questions. There were very many things at once, and I will see if we can succeed in getting clarity on some of them.

Take, for example, the question the member concluded with, namely the one concerning migration and export. If Swedish tax money is to go towards investments in other countries, it is quite reasonable that those countries ensure they take responsibility for their citizens. Countries that do not take in their own citizens and do not grant them the rights they have as citizens in those countries commit a flagrant violation against their own population. The leverage we have from the Swedish side, we shall, of course, also utilize.

When it comes to exports, we have fantastic export companies in Sweden, and they can help build up the countries that need economic development through trade. It is therefore perfectly excellent if our trade strategies and our aid can go hand in hand and in this way increase the economic development and exchange in these countries.

As I began with, the goal of Swedish aid policy must namely be that more countries shall stand on their own feet and be less dependent on our generosity and goodwill. We know that there is only one recipe that has created prosperity on our earth throughout the ages, and that is free trade and market economy. I understand that it may be difficult for Vänsterpartiet to accept that, but it is nevertheless a fact.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree that aid should lead to countries becoming less dependent on aid. I am also not against trade, but it must occur on the recipient's terms and should not primarily benefit Swedish companies. Instead, it should benefit the recipient. That is what is important. It is also important that there is a long-term perspective in this. I have absolutely nothing against promoting trade - not in any way.

When it comes to the migration policy goals, it completely contradicts the DAC guidelines of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee on how international aid may be used in relation to migration issues. We see point by point how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna have agreed upon stands in direct conflict with international regulatory frameworks. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals. It is very clear that this will not be possible to implement without it being signal politics that you are engaged in, John E Weinerhall.

Good aid is long-term and provides partners with predictable conditions through agreements that span several years. One ensures that changes occur in cooperation and dialogue with those who are affected. One conducts impact assessments before making changes. One prioritizes, for example, local ownership and sticks to the principle that aid should contribute to fulfilling the goal of supporting people living in poverty and oppression, as well as prioritizing and integrating work for equality and against discrimination of girls' and women's rights in all parts of development policy. One strengthens civil society.

It is these things that ensure one receives good and effective aid.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree that there should be well-thought-out strategies, that there should be no abruptness in the aid, and that there should be long-term thinking and predictability. But the member may have missed that a major war of aggression is currently taking place on our own continent with an enormous humanitarian catastrophe as a result. In such a draconian situation, it is clear that there will be rapid changes in the aid because resources must be relocated elsewhere; I believe the member also understands that.

An example of this is the previous Social Democratic government, which draconianly made cuts of almost 50 percent of the aid to Guatemala. That was because the resources were needed somewhere else. So it is also this year, and so it will probably be for a long time to come – Ukraine will be the major aid recipient going forward.

Therefore, all strategies are now being reviewed. We will hopefully see the result of this review of all strategies during this year, so that we can ensure that we have long-term planning.

The fact that there is a framework to be decided upon every four years does not mean that there will be less volatility. At regular intervals, all strategies for engagement in Swedish aid are reviewed. I do not see at all the reason for concern that the member sees.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, John Weinerhall, for the speech!

I wonder why a Moderate-led government always takes on the UN when given the chance. I want to give some examples of the effect that Swedish core funding to UN agencies has. This is just from one of the UN agencies, namely UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, which works with sexual and reproductive health and rights. This is statistics that only show what Swedish aid funds have contributed to between 2018 and 2021.

17,851 more women have survived their pregnancy thanks to interventions to reduce maternal mortality. 816,500 more girls and women have been protected from child marriage and forced marriage. 22.9 million couples have gained access to contraceptives. 1.9 million unsafe and dangerous abortions have been prevented. 420,000 girls and women who have been subjected to violence have received support and protection. 6.4 million unplanned pregnancies have been prevented. 82,000 girls have been saved from being subjected to female genital mutilation. 1.7 million fewer people have been affected by sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, thanks to access to condoms. 1 million more girls have been able to go to school and get an education.

Now the right-wing government has decided that 25 percent of UNFPA's support from Sweden shall be cut. These are cuts that have actual consequences and which mean that real people - real girls and women - do not receive the support they need.

I have a simple question. Which quarter of this should be removed? Which quarter is unnecessary and superfluous?

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! Now, the fact is that you in the Social Democrats, however much you would like to pretend otherwise, do not have a particularly much larger aid budget than what we have to work with. The question is what priorities you from the Social Democrats' side would like to see instead when priorities must still be made.

Yes, we want to significantly reduce the non-earmarked support that goes to various UN agencies - the so-called core support - and funds that are not purely humanitarian. It is completely true, and there is a very clear reason for this: We want a Swedish aid that is characterized by efficiency and transparency. The UN does very many good deeds in many places and in many different ways, but if there is anything that one cannot blame the UN for in all parts is being transparent and efficient.

That is exactly the problem. We do not get a target-oriented approach for aid by pumping enormous amounts of money into the UN system. We can use these resources in other ways and, through bilateral aid and other interventions, provide humanitarian aid in a completely different way.

We have during recent years seen how dictatorships and authoritarian states have been elected into UN bodies for the purpose of, for example, monitoring compliance with human rights. We make a different prioritization than the Social Democrats, because we believe that these funds are used better in another way.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I also have another question. It concerns the false contradiction that the Moderaterna and the entire right now play up between efficiency and the size of Swedish aid.

There is nothing that says a grant becomes more effective just because it becomes smaller. That logic is not used anywhere else in politics except when it comes to aid, where this has begun to be persistently put forward by the right-wing parties. They say that they want to reduce the aid and focus on the results and the efficiency instead of on the size.

That is very strange. Aid does not become more effective by becoming less. There is also no contradiction in this chamber when it comes to this; it is not the case that some would want more effective aid than others. Everyone in here wants effective aid and to ensure that tax money is used in the best possible way. Everyone wants to learn from examples where Swedish aid has not been purposeful and has not led to desired results and reform it so that it becomes effective. There is no one in here who is against this.

The dividing line runs between those who think we should stick to the one percent goal - that one hundredth of our wealth should go to poor people out in the world and to combating oppression and safeguarding democratic development - and those who do not want that.

We Social Democrats stand up for the one percent goal. We will restore the one percent level as soon as we return to government power - the sooner, the better. The difference is between those who stand up for this and the parties that do not stand up for it, i.e., the government parties. The difference is not about who wants or does not want effective aid.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! It is almost a bit ridiculous here in the speaker's chair. Here stands Olle Thorell trying to pretend that the Social Democrats are sticking to the one percent goal. It is not true - the Socialdemokraterna have submitted a budget with 0.91 percent of bni.

When the Social Democrats had the chance to show what aid policy they want to pursue, they presented an opposition budget that does not reach the one percent goal. It should reasonably have been quite easy to do just this, as one hardly had to be worried about whether the budget would win the chamber's approval. But not even when presenting an almost imaginary budget does imagination seem to know what boundaries exist within the Social Democrats, I was about to say.

It is always the case that the Social Democrats are interested in discussing expenditure levels and expenditure targets rather than having a discussion on how we can ensure that Swedish humanitarian aid can reduce death and how we, through trade, economic reforms, and upholding the rule of law and human rights, can ensure that countries are not dependent on aid in the long term. I have not heard anything from the Social Democrats' side in any debate in this chamber during this parliamentary term regarding what content the aid should have; it is only a numbers exercise in every debate. I would have welcomed a discussion on what the Swedish aid should contain and what it should achieve.

We all know how it is, regardless of whether one has been involved in this assembly for a number of years or whether one has been involved in a municipality, a region or a county council: When there is a bag of money that one must put a lid on at the end of the year, one does it.

It is precisely this that happens with Swedish aid if one has expenditure targets instead of a fixed framework and knowledge of what the aid is to be used for. Then one puts a "sprätt" (a quick grab) on the money and is not always so careful about what the money goes to.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must comment on some things that John Weinerhall said from the rostrum which were quite strange.

The first thing was that the one percent goal was supposed to be something a bit arrogant or strange. It is not. The OECD urges all countries to give at least 0.7 percent of their GNI and their wealth to development cooperation and aid. So, there is nothing strange about that. Sweden has wanted more until now, which is really not bad. It is only to be regretted that the Moderate government is cutting back on it.

The second thing was that we should not know where the Swedish aid goes. We do know. There is as much evaluation as possible of where the aid goes. It is only those who do not care to look or those who for some reason want to undermine the legitimacy of the aid who continue to say this. I hope that the Moderaterna in every way find out where the aid goes and that one thereafter no longer wants to undermine the legitimacy.

But that was not actually what I wanted to ask about, rather my question concerns something that the government and the Moderates have been clear about, namely the abolition of the feminist foreign and development policy. It has been said that they want to remove the label, but now it turns out to also concern all plans and instructions.

How do John E Weinerhall and the Moderaterna intend to achieve increased equality through aid if they do not set any actual goals, plans, or instructions in practice?

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! A great deal was addressed in this reply, but I will do my best to meet the member's expectations and answer her questions.

It is true that we do not stand for either the one percent goal or a spending goal for aid. However, we have set a generous framework. Internationally, Sweden is still one of the absolute largest donors in the world in relation to the size of our economy. We can afford to be generous, and we will help where it is needed to alleviate distress but also support the work for democracy and the rule of law in the countries where development has gone in the wrong direction.

Of course, one can choose to focus only on the expenditure goal as such. But even in the government that the Green Party was part of, i.e., the previous Social Democratic-led government, of the 1 percent of GNI in the aid framework that went towards actual aid, a long way was far from actual aid. They made enormous deductions, for example, of 22 percent for refugee reception in 2016. We have set a cap on this so that it cannot be more than 8 percent of the aid framework. So when it comes to what the rest of the world gets, there is probably more bang for the buck with our aid budget than with the previous government's.

Regarding feminist foreign policy, it is true that the Moderaterna and the government do not get hung up on labels. However, that says nothing about a reduced commitment to the rights of women and girls around the world. Women's sexual and reproductive health and rights are still prioritized by the government, and I can promise the member that this issue will continue to be prioritized by the government.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank John E Weinerhall for the answer.

This should not become a debate about the goal. I only wanted to emphasize that it is not anything crazy or strange, but that the OECD-DAC urges countries to have a percentage goal and that Sweden has had an ambitious one. I hope that the ambitions are raised so that we can once again reach it.

John E Weinerhall raised the settlements, and it is very good that a cap has been set for them. We in Miljöpartiet have always wanted to have settlements as low as possible and during our time in the government, we did everything we could to minimize them. We needed such a tool as is now negotiated, and it is very good that it exists.

Back to the feminist foreign and development policy. Everyone hoped that the government and the Moderaterna would just remove the label, but now we have found out that nothing remains. There is, admittedly, a promise that a new SRHR strategy will be developed, which is good. Women's right to their own bodies and to their sexual and reproductive health is absolutely crucial for many of the other development goals, so there is nothing wrong with that. But nothing remains of the initiatives on equality in all our international forums. Plans, projects, and instructions to embassies have been removed. This issue is no longer being worked on.

We here in the Riksdag do not know how the government pushes in international forums, where one actually has to work with this. We know that the funding to civil society, which also works with equality issues in many different ways, has been cut.

I want a slightly clearer answer from John E Weinerhall. How can we in the Riksdag know that the government continues to have high ambitions when it comes to equality?

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

A review of all strategies is underway, which I view with great confidence. Hopefully, it will be completed during the year, but if not, as soon as possible.

I do not know exactly which plans and projects the member is talking about. But one thing I can promise: Judging by the conversations and meetings I have had with our government representatives and at the ministry, this is highly prioritized and will continue to be so. I am convinced that the updated strategies will be scrutinized by this and that this work will continue to be important in Swedish foreign policy and aid policy.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Weinerhall for an engaging contribution.

We both represent parties that like efficiency, priorities, trade and all the effects of trade, and we obviously also stand behind Ukraine's great needs. Therefore, there is no doubt - so we do not need to discuss that part.

I can respect that one does not stick to a one percent goal just for the sake of it but rather looks at the needs, even if we as a party do not agree with this. But when the UN estimates that at least twice as large investments are needed to achieve the goals in Agenda 2030 while aid is decreasing globally, it does not quite add up. Perhaps we should therefore even increase the aid to significantly more than 1 percent given the real needs, obviously provided that it is to be effective and so on.

My question is therefore: Should one actually increase the aid share?

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say that I appreciate the Centre Party's commitment to trade, Ukraine, and effective aid.

To answer the question: Yes, I believe that aid needs to increase internationally. There is absolutely a need for all the countries around the world that have the possibility to contribute to also contribute. There are many countries around the world that have the ability to contribute much more than they do today, and I think that Sweden should be a driving force in showing these countries the good work that we do in many parts of the world. We shall be an example and in that way get them involved in this.

Should Sweden increase its aid? No, not necessarily. I believe it is much better to gather the world's wealthy nations and get them to contribute as well. It is probably much more effective than Sweden increasing its aid framework significantly.

Even if Sweden were to increase its aid by many hundreds of percent and give more percent of GDP, it still would not cover the world's needs. However, there are many countries that, by increasing their aid budget and their commitment, could make a big difference to the total. It is therefore important to work in all possible international forums to gather the rest of the world so that they can help more where it is needed.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a wise answer. I can absolutely agree, partially. At the same time, it is difficult to be the powerful pioneer when one is reducing a little bit oneself. It would probably have been easier to show and gather if we had at least maintained the level. But I look forward to seeing the work with gathering and, hopefully, increasing the aid globally.

I was a bit taken aback. My view is still that the Moderaterna and Centerpartiet really agree with each other when it comes to precisely long-term solutions and sustainability. Of course, humanitarian aid is very important. But I am still a bit surprised by the focus one places on humanitarian vis-à-vis perhaps a bit more long-term aid. That is also a reflection I have.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree when it comes to precisely the long-term perspective. With a framework of 56 billion kronor over four years, in this case three years, one gets a completely different long-term perspective than the jerkiness in development that occurs when it only depends on how things go with the bni. I would argue that this in itself contributes to better long-term perspective.

But long-term perspective is about more than that. Sweden has had a long commitment and already has strong networks and structures in place. It is about ensuring that we do not, from one day to the next, abandon such efforts and start new ones elsewhere. We shall be where we are strong and have done great good before and stick to such efforts. It is also a form of long-term perspective in the practical implementation of the aid policy. It is important.

I do not quite see the member's concerns regarding the long-term perspective and commitment in the aid policy, perhaps linked to the specific economic conditions that come with a one percent target.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report 6 on development aid. I want to begin by moving for approval of reservations 1 and 6 from us Social Democrats.

International solidarity is fundamental for us Social Democrats, and part of that is that we actually ensure that 1 percent of Sweden's gross national income is allocated to aid. Sweden has stood up for this since the UN over 50 years ago made a decision on how countries can contribute to lifting people out of poverty and oppression.

Sweden was not the first in the world, but among the first countries to begin with 0.7 percent of GNI to aid. Our country has since the 70s allocated one-hundredth of our GNI to aid. It has given Sweden a strong global voice for peace, freedom and human rights, and it has given Sweden opportunities to build bridges and trust around the world.

We Social Democrats view with concern that the right-wing government is now abandoning the one percent goal and the radical reorganization of aid that they have initiated. I say it again, because we often receive questions about this: We Social Democrats stand firm on the goal, the vision, of allocating 1 percent to aid. When we regain government power, we will restore the one percent level in aid. We did that after the 90s crisis when temporary deviations from the one percent level were made, and we will do it again.

The restructuring of the aid policy is now extensive and is occurring without sufficient dialogue and exchange with relevant actors in the field, for example the recipients, civil society organizations, authorities, experts and researchers. Some consequence analyses also appear not to have been carried out or have at least not been communicated.

The feminist foreign and development policy has been abandoned. Individual countries, for example Myanmar, are affected by very large reductions in Swedish aid, and many multinational organizations, for example UN agencies, which have received Swedish core funding for their operations, receive heavily reduced grants.

Civil society organizations are hit hard by the 90 percent reduced appropriation for information and communication regarding aid. Despite promises of increased appropriations for aid via civil society organizations, the government's choice of path implies reduced appropriations for many. There is talk of a new reform agenda for aid, but so far no traces of that agenda have been seen. The questions are many regarding Sweden's future aid policy and the consequences that the reorganization will have. At the same time, the answers have so far been few.

War, conflicts and the effects of climate change are driving increased humanitarian needs in the world. To help and protect those affected, a strong commitment and strong international aid are needed. Sweden can make a difference, and others can learn from us. We are the country in the world that receives the highest grade when our aid is evaluated. Sweden is needed to defend international solidarity, contribute to peace, democracy and international law, as well as stand up for women's and children's rights, solidarity, disarmament and equality.

Sweden shall continue the work to increase respect for human rights, democracy, and the rules-based world order. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has reminded us that this work must continue. Sweden shall support Ukraine but not therefore abandon the solidarity with and support for countries in other parts of the world.

Swedish aid can contribute more clearly to addressing the root causes that force people to flee and what drives increased humanitarian needs, such as war and conflicts as well as the effects of climate change. The perspectives of poor people and the rights of women and children shall be at the center of Swedish aid policy.

Sweden shall be a strong global voice and stand up for international law, human rights, and the principles of democracy. Swedish aid shall contribute to reducing inequalities in the world, promoting democracy, strengthening the rule of law, countering corruption, promoting equality, having a strong children's rights perspective, as well as promoting economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable development.

Our policy for aid and development focuses on ensuring that people are given the conditions to be able to lift themselves out of poverty, improve their living conditions, live in safety, and have power and influence over their own lives. Own work that provides own livelihood is fundamental for people's freedom and an effective way to combat poverty. Wages that are livable, a safe working environment, and decent employment conditions must be ensured.

International solidarity is undeniable for us Social Democrats, just as is our support for democratic movements and actors, trade unions and civil societies around the world.

Sweden must, of course, set clear requirements that aid is used for its intended purpose, and actors shall be held accountable when irregularities are detected. For us, it is self-evident to always perform controls and risk analyses of Swedish aid interventions as well as to follow them up with audits and reporting of results.

A democratic development is built through a well-functioning multi-party system, free and fair elections, as well as parliaments and institutions that follow the principles of the rule of law. Development cooperation shall contribute to building up and strengthening democratic systems of government, free political parties, popular movements, and institutions. Supporting the organization of political parties and a democratic culture is central for us Social Democrats. We want the democracy support to democratic parties and actors to increase.

Sweden shall continue to counter the shrinking space for civil society by safeguarding and supporting the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly. In many societies, churches and religious actors play a significant role and are often the institutions that people trust above all else. Collaborating with Swedish organizations that are close to them is important to achieve success in efforts for peace, poverty reduction, and equality.

We want to focus on strengthening institutions, social security systems such as unemployment benefits, child allowance, parental leave and pensions, as well as actors who support sustainable development and democratic governance. We also want to combat tax evasion, which undermines the welfare state, through targeted efforts in aid to, for example, establish tax authorities in the recipient countries as well as build effective and fair tax systems with clear regulatory frameworks for taxation.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that Sweden continues to be a leader in contributing to the implementation of Agenda 2030, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development, and the Paris Agreement on climate globally, and that development work is not undermined by a lack of coherence between different policy areas.

Finally: Through the so-called core funding that goes to a multilateral organization's central budget, Sweden can achieve foreign and aid policy objectives while simultaneously contributing to the achievement of the organizations' goals and creating conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression.

Core funding means increased opportunities for the organizations to act quickly when new crises and needs arise. Core funding also contributes to a long-term stable multilateral system where Sweden's political priorities achieve greater impact.

With that, I would like to thank you for the floor and, as said, move for approval of our reservations number 1 and 6.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! This aid debate is almost starting to resemble a farce. It is somewhat entertaining. When one sits here and listens to the Social Democrats, one is naturally reminded of Bagdad-Bob, but nevertheless, Swedish aid involves matters that are far too serious to allow themselves to be turned into a farce.

Once again, we heard that the Social Democrats stand by the one percent goal. Member of Parliament Thorell said in his speech that they stand by the one percent goal. How can it then be that they do not present a budget that reaches the one percent goal?

There is a difference of 0.3 percentage points between the government's aid budget and the Social Democrats' aid budget. Still, when listening to Olle Thorell, it sounds as if all the old priorities remain. He took up, for example, the cuts to support for Burma/Myanmar. With a brutal war of attack on our own continent and millions of people fleeing, where humanitarian aid, economic support, refugee aid, etc., are required, one must ask what the Social Democrats' priorities actually are.

Madam Speaker! For me, it is quite strange that all of this, taken together, should fit within an aid framework that is 0.3 percentage points larger than the government's. In that case, Thorell is the one who owes an explanation.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I can only repeat what I have said earlier, and if Member Weinerhall thinks it is farcical or Bagdad-Bob-esque, I do not want to stoop to that level. I can only say how we Social Democrats have thought. We are allocating 2.5 billion kronor more than the government on the aid framework. We say that one should do exactly as we did after the 90s crisis, when we lowered the aid to 0.7 percent and were clear that the goal still remained. Even if one deviates from the level for a period, one can keep the goal. That is what we have now, and that is what we had then.

If Member Weinerhall does not believe me, it surely adds more credibility that the Social Democrats have done this before. We have maintained the one percent target and raised it from 0.7 to 1.0 percent. We did that after the 90s crisis, and we will do it again when we get back the power of government. It is visible in our shadow budget that we are taking steps towards this. I can say nothing other than that we will do it when we get the power of government, but the longer it takes, the larger the gap becomes. God forbid that we lose the election in 2026 and do not get the chance until 2030! Then that gap will become even larger, and it will take longer to restore it.

Our goal remains. We stand up for the one percent goal. The dividing line between the different parties in the Swedish Riksdag runs between those who have a one percent goal and those who do not. The Moderates, together with the Sweden Democrats, are the parties that straight up and down say that it is wrong to have the goal of allocating 1 percent of our wealth to poverty reduction.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! It is perfectly correct that the Moderates and the current government do not want an expenditure target, which the Social Democrats want. But I did not quite get an answer to the question I asked. I would still like to start by saying that I have respect for the fact that the Social Democrats have a will and ambition to reach 1 percent of GDP or GNI when it comes to aid. One is welcome to have that, but as a Moderate, I do not believe that is what is decisive for aid and what difference it makes in the world.

My question was what cuts the Social Democrats' budget would entail. What core support disappears for the Social Democrats, and which strategies will the Social Democrats have to cut? The Social Democrats' budget is not anywhere near as large as the aid budget they submitted when they were in government, even though Sweden has an enormous commitment in Ukraine, which is Sweden's largest recipient of aid. I wonder what priorities the Social Democrats see, because I understand that it is easy to criticize the government's aid policy and budget when one does not oneself need to take responsibility for the budget one submits in opposition.

It is such that, and I do not think one should mess around with it, that given how the aid looked until last year, the Social Democrats' aid budget would mean a draconian cut. Not least given the reprioritizations that must be made due to the war in Ukraine, it would have major effects in other places around the world. The question is therefore still what priorities Olle Thorell sees the Social Democrats' budget would entail and what cuts would need to be made.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Weinerhall for the questions.

It is clear that in a sense it is easier to be in opposition. It is also more difficult to be in a governing position. It is among the governing parties' duties to stand for the policy that is actually implemented and to answer questions regarding it.

We in the opposition shall present counter-proposals that show our alternatives, and we have done so. We are allocating 2.5 billion kronor more than the government within the aid framework, and that could, for example, be enough to avoid cutting 60 percent of the bilateral support to Myanmar. But it is clear that even we, if we had been in government, would have had to make priorities and redistribute. We would close some embassy there and open another here.

We Social Democrats also prioritized Ukraine during our last year in government. During 2022, Ukraine was the highest priority in the aid budget. If it was not the largest, it was the second largest aid country even during our time in government. We are capable of making those priorities, and I have respect for the fact that one must realign aid policy when things happen. With a major war in Europe, it is clear that resources must be allocated there.

I can say that we would not make such a monumental scrap of paper within aid policy as the government is doing without anchoring it with the actors in the field, conducting impact assessments, or inviting, for example, civil society actors to discussion before making a reorganization of the policy. We absolutely would not do that. We would prioritize, but we would do it in a more thoughtful way than this government has shown itself to do.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Thorell has now repeated this regarding the importance of the one percent goal. I have not sat in the Riksdag nearly as long as the member has, but I have listened to and followed Swedish politics for many years and been active at various levels. Since the member emphasizes so much the importance of conducting impact assessments, measuring, and evaluating, I would like to have this specified.

In what way does aid become more effective by sticking to and being blinded by a one percent goal? What did you conclude in your evaluations and analyses during the Social Democratic government's eight years? What is it that makes you unable to imagine reconsidering this? When the world is changing and the economic situation looks the way it does both in Sweden and in many other places, it would perhaps still be wise to be open to reviewing how aid should be managed. In all other policy areas, there is a budget framework, and it should actually work in the field of aid as well. There is great potential for improvement. But again: What have the previous government's evaluations shown that has made the one percent goal predominant in your policy?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Katarina Tolgfors for the questions, which give me the opportunity to tell a bit more about how we view the aid policy.

It is not that we stare blindly at the sum or at the share of 1 percent. The most important thing, of course, is that the resources yield results. They must be used effectively and purposefully with proven experience, science, and research as the basis. One must learn from previous mistakes. One must ensure that the aid policy contributes to Swedish priorities in foreign policy. One must ensure that synergies are found between trade and aid. There are a thousand things one can do to fill the aid with content.

We are not blindly fixated on the one percent level. We have worked purposefully for many years to fill the aid with the best possible content. Those who are fixated on the level are those who say that it is wrong to have this steering rod. Since there are endless needs in the world, the need for aid in the world will never be zero, which is the Moderaternas goal. You have a zero vision for aid. I think that is a naive view of the world's development. There will always be a need for aid. Since we are so lucky to live in one of the world's richest countries, we think it is good to have a steering rod and a compass that points in a certain direction. Therefore, we allocate one percent. That is how we see the matter.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I think I received any concrete answer. I hope that you have evaluated the aid policy you pursued during the eight years you were in power, Olle Thorell. One could increase it to 2 percent and have a goal. But if one does not have a strategy with sub-goals, measures, evaluates, and has a transparent system, it does not matter how high the percentage is. The important thing is to ensure that the aid works where the need is greatest and that one gets the greatest possible return on the tax money that Sweden generously gives in aid, which we shall continue to do. I ask again: Could you mention any example of evaluation of your own aid work that makes it possible to justify the one percent goal as the best?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish aid is scrutinized across all levels, and not only by Swedish authorities and organizations such as Sida, the National Audit Office, and the Expert Group for Aid Analysis. There are dozens of reports and audit statements. Civil society organizations and their aid work around the world are scrutinized across the board. The OECD has also conducted evaluations of Swedish aid. This past year, a review of Swedish aid was conducted which states that it is of absolute world-class quality. It is purposeful and well-thought-out, follows research, and is based on the recipients' perspectives and the rights of the poor. It is based on what research shows is effective aid.

Since then, it is clear that there are problems in Swedish aid, a large operation where many billions are used in the difficult environments one operates in. That they are difficult is also the reason why one is there. We want to be in countries that suffer from corruption and a lack of state-building. That is where aid is needed, and that is why we are there. At the same time, one risks being affected by these syndromes. But to spread the image that Swedish aid is ineffective and that no one has any idea where the money goes is just ridiculous populism that I think the Moderaterna should be too good for.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! For nearly 40 years, I have had close contact with Sweden's leading aid country, Tanzania. I myself have worked as a nurse for four years at two different hospitals in Tanzania that were built up by Svensk Pingstmission. It is the same organization that stands behind the hospital in Congo where Nobel Prize-winning doctor Denis Mukwege carries out his work to restore women after the sexualized violence in eastern Congo. Since 2004, I have visited Tanzania roughly every other year in connection with my husband, who is a doctor, having been there for shorter periods through Rotary and Erikshjälpens läkarbank.

Through modern technology, we can maintain close contact with our friends and colleagues. Right now, we are in the process of equipping the hospital with solar cells to break free from fossil fuel dependency. This is being done through money collected by congregations, money from secondhand sales and Rotary's charity concerts, as well as Swedish aid funds via Läkarmissionen. We can follow in real-time how the solar panels arrive, and we know our colleagues well and know that they would not dream of embezzling a single shilling.

It is a privilege to have been able to follow a country's development for such a long time. It provides perspective on much, not least the leap in development that came when human entrepreneurship was unleashed after decades of socialist central rule. Small businesses grew like mushrooms from the ground and created ripple effects. People created the conditions to escape poverty and could create job opportunities for more, even for people outside the family.

We have also seen how low education levels and ignorance brought about disease and suffering that could have been remedied. When we taught about basic and preventive healthcare, we could, for example, teach the intercropping of protein-rich legumes, which meant that we could put a stop to the constant occurrence of malnourished children in a fundamentally fertile area. It was pure ignorance that lay behind the poverty and malnutrition. With health education, we could also contribute to ensuring that wells were protected from contaminated surface water and that latrines were dug. Through this, the spread of infection was reduced.

When the wells received hand pumps, the unexpected happened. Suddenly, boys and men could fetch the family's water needs on their bicycles in one trip, and the girls got time to go to school. These examples show that with fairly simple means, one can improve people's living conditions, reduce poverty, and improve public health. Knowledge is the mother of development.

We have also seen clear evidence of how corruption paralyzes the state system. At the state clinics, one is forced to bribe one's way through to get the staff to perform their duties. This means that patients are prepared to travel several extra hours, in several cases past a number of state hospitals, to the mission's hospital where one knows that one will receive a good reception, and one knows in advance what the care will cost.

Madam Speaker! With this said, no one will be surprised by the confidence I have in the power of civil society organizations. It is about the trust and loyalty that exists between the parties in the cooperation when one is rooted in a common ideology or an idea of our mutual responsibility for one another and for using the common, collected funds as effectively as possible.

With the broad insight I have gained during these two years as a member of the Riksdag regarding Swedish aid overall, I want to emphasize that the same commitment to our fellow human beings and the same strong drive to use every krona effectively can be seen across the entire field.

We Christian Democrats consider it to be a good principle to allocate a predetermined share, 1 percent of GDP, to aid in a world where the needs are endless. The fixed amount of 56 billion, which is included in the four-party agreement, is a departure from that principle. But combined with the Christian Democratic innovation of a cap for the offsets, it still provides a good basis for long-term predictability in aid. It ensures that it is at an international top level.

I want to point out in this context that we Christian Democrats consider deductions that are higher than the cost for the estimated number of asylum seekers during a year to be a loan from the aid that must be paid back.

Madam Speaker! Parallel to the Tidö Agreement, the four parties concluded the agreement Path for Aid. It has the same status as the Tidö Agreement. There, the principles are established for the coming years' reform agenda for aid.

The aid framework is set for three years. In this way, greater predictability and the possibility of follow-up are created. The deductions for refugee costs are limited to a maximum of 8 percent of the aid framework and shall be announced well in advance, at the latest in connection with the budget bill for the year in which the deductions are to be made.

A reform agenda for aid is being developed with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. Thematic priorities shall be made with a focus on poverty reduction and health interventions for the most vulnerable, democracy aid to human rights defenders and democracy activists, expanded and streamlined climate aid, and the rights and opportunities of women and girls.

The proportion of aid channeled through core funding to multilateral organizations is limited, and the proportion of aid channeled through civil society is increased. Multilateral cooperation shall be focused on those organizations that work with the thematic priorities as well as with humanitarian refugee aid and children's rights.

Greater emphasis shall be placed on bilateral and multilateral efforts to increase transparency and governance over orientation, implementation, and follow-up. A special focus is made on efforts to create conditions for free elections.

The deduction for gifts to legal entities shall be investigated and introduced so that incentives are also created for companies to contribute more to international aid activities.

In this way, an ambitious reform agenda has been initiated. It has been based on independent evaluations which have shown that Swedish aid over the years has become less focused and consequently also less effective and more difficult to evaluate. We must also necessarily take into account the gigantic needs that exist in our war-torn neighboring country Ukraine.

The government is currently working on preparing the basis for the work. In order for it to be good, it will require careful preparation and implementation. I am proud that the main features of the reform agenda are derived from the Christian Democrats' aid policy program. I can promise that we will ensure that the basic ideas in this agreement also become a reality.

I therefore wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the speech! There is no doubt that the member is engaged in aid issues. The Christian Democrats have also stood up for generous and good aid. The member now also says that you stand by the one percent goal. That pleases me. I truly hope that you in the government will fight hard to ensure that the government recovers the one percent goal in aid.

Unfortunately, over several years we have seen how different governments have used aid funds for offsetting refugee reception. This does not only concern the previous Social Democratic government. Previous center-right governments have also done so.

The Bildt government reduced by 5.1 percent during its time. Persson's government reduced by 8.1 percent, and Reinfeldt's by 13 percent. The Andersson government reduced by 18 percent. It is a very large amount of money that has been taken from aid and gone to refugee reception.

From the Left Party's side, we are very critical of using aid funds in that way. Aid funds should go to poor people and not to paying for refugees in our own country.

I would like to hear the member's view on the accounts. During 2023, the government took 1.3 billion too much from the aid for asylum costs in Sweden. This is shown by the Migration Agency's and the Public Employment Service's February forecast.

Will the Christian Democrats in the government work to ensure that those funds return to aid in the spring budget?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is true, just as I said in my speech, that we consider the one percent target to be a good benchmark and a rule that one should be able to have. One should also be able to fulfill it in the most efficient way possible.

It is clear that we in the government will work to regain that goal. But pending that, I can reveal that precisely the introduction of the cap for the deductions was our condition for us to agree to the frozen level, which is 4 billion lower than for last year's aid framework.

When we cap the ceiling at a maximum of 8 percent, we get significantly more money than when the Social Democratic government suddenly withdrew funds during the ongoing budget year. It was initially a higher sum, but it landed at a total of 18 percent of the aid framework.

The Speaker asked here how we view the issue of deductions. When they are made based on a calculated proportion of refugee reception and it then turns out that there are not as many refugees, we mean, just as I said in my speech, that they should be repaid.

On the other hand, there may be an idea to wait until the autumn budget, as one has more secure figures on where it ultimately lands compared to if one were to put the money back in the spring budget. If an unexpected flow of refugees then occurs, it must be corrected again.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the answer! It is in many ways positive, even though I consider that also 8 percent is a lot of money in deduction and that we should come down to an absolute minimum when it comes to deduction for refugee reception. It should be financed in another way and not from the aid, which is already enormously strained.

I believe it would be good if the money that one has, so to speak, taken out too much comes back already in the spring budget, because it is needed. We see how the situation is in the rest of the world with increased poverty. We see how there is a shortage of basic necessities such as clean water, healthcare and so on around the world. We see how more money is needed for the education of girls and women. There is so much where a large amount of support is needed, so these 1.3 billion would do great good already now.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I agree in many and many respects with the member in what is being said here: It would have been better if one could have avoided making the accounts entirely.

But it is nevertheless the case that OECD-DAC has approved this procedure. They also approved the gigantically large deduction that the Social Democrats made during the ongoing budget year last year. Therefore, we feel that we have still achieved a great success by imposing this cap, which furthermore must be announced already in the budget for coming years. Such deductions can therefore not occur during the ongoing budget year. It provides much greater long-term perspective and greater predictability.

As I said earlier, I believe that even though the needs are endless - there are as many needs as one can imagine all around our world - it is better to build the final sum on figures that are as definitive as possible rather than letting the whole thing flutter back and forth based on how the refugee flows unfold during the year.

I will work to ensure that we can bring this back in connection with the autumn budget.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! My one question concerned precisely the settlement, and there I must say that Gudrun Brunegård has given a very clear and positive answer. I truly understand the reasoning behind it all, and I would probably have reasoned similarly myself if I had been in this situation. Then I really hope that the work that Gudrun Brunegård puts into returning the aid to 1 percent leads to it happening as quickly as possible.

I also have another question. It concerns the reform agenda, which is living a life of its own and which we are all anxiously awaiting. Does Gudrun Brunegård know how this will be anchored in the Riksdag when it finally arrives? We are all incredibly curious.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we are all truly burning with longing to see what the agenda will be. But it is currently being drafted, and it will be anchored in various ways.

First, it must be negotiated between the parties in the Government Offices so that it truly fulfills the criteria that the four parties have agreed upon. Just as a member pointed out here earlier, it is important that the agenda is built on science, proven experience, and the research that exists on aid so that it is firm and securely anchored. The agenda must also be anchored against civil society organizations and so on.

It will be presented to the Riksdag in due course - exactly how, when, where and in what form it will take, I cannot say today, as the work is currently underway. I am glad that the member has respect for our work when it comes to aid levels and settlement levels and where it will ultimately end up.

I hope that the member will also have respect for the work when one is to make such a major turnaround and redirect the aid so that it becomes more effective, more focused and more concentrated based on the evaluations we have received of the Swedish aid so far. These have shown that the aid over the years has become diluted and less focused. There have been more focus areas, more program countries and so on, and we need to narrow it down.

This requires thorough work to ensure it becomes as good and as effective as possible.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! It also needs to be anchored, and I am pleased that there is a desire for it to be anchored, at least from Gudrun Brunegårds side. I truly hope that work is going well, because so far we on the other side have not been very satisfied. Civil society has also expressed its concern.

But I, as I have said, look forward to the reform agenda, and above all, I look forward to being involved. It will be interesting to see how civil society is also involved in this.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! According to our basic view as Christian Democrats, where civil society is one of the most important building blocks in society, it is clear that civil society should be involved. It is also according to the joint four-party agreement intended that civil society should bear a larger share of the assistance work.

But we must first find the forms for how we, as government parties, want to proceed. Then comes the next step. Everything will become clear in due course.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have a number of proposals for changes for a better and more efficient aid.

Swedish aid today is extremely generous, but is it enough? No, it absolutely is not. The world is unfortunately not perfect, and there are many countries with major challenges in a number of different areas. Some countries are disaster-stricken or war-torn or have lacking infrastructure. Others cannot even provide their population with enough food or clean water.

Help is needed in extremely many places around the world. But the question is: What do we want to achieve with the aid? We have long had percentage targets, which has resulted in an unpredictability in Swedish aid where the governing parties have not taken proper responsibility for the management of Swedish tax money.

There are great injustices and far too much evil all around the world. But one thing that must be kept in mind is that no matter how much one would like it, Sweden cannot alone stand as guarantor for the world's entire population. Together with other countries in a number of different assemblies, we have agreed on common goals for how much aid we should provide. But unfortunately, it is very few countries that live up to these goals.

It is important that more countries take greater responsibility. For even if we were to put the entire Swedish state budget into aid, the funds would not be enough to help the whole world out of poverty or even to give everyone a roof over their heads. But what we can do is to review our own part - that the funds we allocate for worthy causes around the world actually yield results.

It is about acting wisely and being economical with Sweden's finances. If we are to engage in aid, and thereby use money that is actually needed in Sweden, it must at least go to the right things.

The Sweden Democrats and the government parties have, as is known, entered into an agreement, the Tidö Agreement. In that, we have agreed on some basic points for Sweden's aid policy in the area of development assistance. This involves, among other things, effective measures to reduce the root causes of migration and that the recipient country takes responsibility for its own citizens and takes them back from Sweden when necessary.

The cooperation does not stop there, however. A reform agenda is being processed, where we will map out and concretize how aid can be used more wisely. Much money is lost today to unnecessary overhead costs and does not reach those in need. Therefore, we want to see these costs reduced and instead increase support for civil society.

Madam Speaker! Emergency care is incredibly important, but we must be able to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time and think long-term.

Sweden is one of the countries that allocates the largest share of its state budget to aid to help people around the world. But if we do not focus and work effectively and purposefully with aid, it will never be enough. For people to be taken out of poverty, they need to have their own opportunities to establish prosperity. There, democracy and education have an important role, but also business and trade.

Madam Speaker! The previous government with the Social Democrats at the top seemed to think that their way of handling tax funds was good and sensible, but the fact is that in an enormous number of cases, the aid has gone to corruption. It is not about one case, not about three or ten, but about hundreds of projects where the money has been handled corruptly. Just during 2021, Sida received 303 cases of suspected corruption or other irregularities.

I think this is enough of a sign that a rethink must be made. One cannot continue in the same old usual tracks just because one has always done so. We must review the aid to improve it and make it as effective and purposeful as possible. Every tax krona that goes to corruption is money down the drain and an insult both to those in need in Sweden who are left helpless and to those in need in other countries who could have had completely different living conditions for all those aid millions that villains have stuffed into their own pockets.

Madam Speaker! Aid needs to be reformed. The Swedish aid goals should not be about how much money or what percentage of Sweden's GDP a single country should spend on aid. The goal must be to actually focus on helping others build long-term systems to get out of poverty. The goal must be that aid will no longer be needed. It does not work to dabble a little here and there with aid funds just so that one is certainly involved in helping everywhere and showing off. It is not being good to take money from those in need in Sweden to then waste it on inefficient projects that lack long-term perspective.

Madam Speaker! Sweden should focus on helping people in the countries and regions where the refugee flows originate. Many refugees are in their neighboring countries, which can offer safety and some social services. These neighboring countries can also contribute to stability in the area. The proximity to the home country also makes it easier for refugees to return home and contribute to rebuilding their home countries when it is possible.

It is therefore in everyone's interest that countries located around crisis areas and with a large number of refugees receive generous international aid. But Sweden, as a small country, cannot pull the entire load alone. It is unreasonable that the UN refugee organization UNHCR does not have sufficient funding from the international community. Very few countries contribute their agreed share to aid. Most have happily watched as countries like Sweden have generously contributed aid far above the international targets for each country. This order is not sustainable, neither for Sweden nor for the world as a whole.

Madam Speaker! As I initially mentioned, the Sweden Democrats have a number of different proposals for a better aid policy, but with respect for our cooperation with the government and the ongoing work with the reform agenda, I only move for approval of reservation 7.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to ask the member from the Sweden Democrats about the Sweden Democrats' aid policy. Apart from the agreement that has been made regarding 56 billion over the coming years, you have stated that your goal is 0.5 percent, a halving of Swedish aid. It is easy to stand in the speaker's chair and talk about things one wants to improve and do more of, but it is another thing to finance it. What I wonder is in what way any human being is helped more by Sweden halving its aid.

This is not so surprising. The Sweden Democrats are a nationalist party sprung from the Bevara Sverige svenskt-rörelsen, the white power movement. That these roots influence how one views the rest of the world is nothing surprising. What is surprising is the impact they have had on the rest of the right's aid policy.

The needs are, as said, endless, and no one is saying that Sweden alone shall take care of the whole world. This is something that Sverigedemokrater repeat: Sweden cannot do this alone. No human being claims that Sweden alone shall take care of all needs in the whole world. It is just a fabrication.

We have had as a guiding principle in Swedish politics to allocate one percent of our wealth to poverty reduction in the world. The Sweden Democrats want to halve it. Then I wonder: In what way does halving Sweden's aid contribute to global development?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now our government is governing on a joint budget that the Sweden Democrats support, and where we stand up for the same allocation to aid as the other government parties do.

What distinguishes the Social Democrats from the Sweden Democrats is efficiency. We do not believe that one can throw money at various projects to the right and left and that everything will then automatically resolve itself. We believe in impact assessments and making targeted interventions, many interventions simultaneously, in order to be able to lift countries so that they can eventually stand on their own feet.

No, as I mentioned in my speech, Sweden obviously cannot alone account for all the world's aid. That is exactly the point. More countries must help and share the burden. Sweden today provides more in aid than the agreed goals, while other countries are not even close to reaching them. That is where the big difference can be made. More must help each other.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The dividing line between the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats does not lie in whether we think it should be effective aid. It lies in the view of people. It lies in the view of Sweden's role in the world. It lies in whether one stands up for all people's equal value or not. There are infinitely many dividing lines, but effective aid is not one of them.

I will try to be very concrete here. The Sweden Democrats have had as a slogan through the years that we should help on-site instead of helping here in Sweden. How do you help more on-site by halving the aid, which is your goal?

I also have a second question. You are also advocating that Sweden should move away from the national climate goals of net-zero emissions by 2045 with interim targets for 2030. These are the goals that the Sverigedemokraterna want to abandon. Yet you say that you stand behind the Paris Agreement and that one should ensure that emissions are reduced somewhere else so that we can avoid making the difficult transitions here in Sweden. In what way is this helped by halving Swedish aid, which is what the Sverigedemokraterna want?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! With Olle Thorell's rhetoric, the Social Democrats should find it very easy to agree with the Sweden Democrats' policy regarding aid on-site. How do we help more refugees with the same funds? It is quite well-established that it is extremely expensive with refugees and refugee reception in Sweden. For the same money, we could help many more people in their local area.

Reduced aid does not have to mean less help if one removes unnecessary costs such as overhead costs. I was recently at the UN in New York. There, we ran from one office to another even though people actually work from home. And what does it cost to rent large premises in Manhattan? These are examples of an unnecessary cost that aid money goes towards.

If we can streamline and remove the unnecessary costs, we can save a great deal. As I mentioned, also incredibly many millions go to corruption. If we can put the money into valuable, credible and honest projects, not so many funds need to be wasted.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Yasmine Eriksson, for your speech! But there is a part that I would very much like to comment on.

The Speaker mentions that we could invest significantly more in those in need in Sweden. It is classic Sweden Democrat policy to pit vulnerable groups against one another. It is intended to create an image that the Sweden Democrats care more about the very weakest in Sweden than the weakest internationally. But it is a false image, because one does not invest in the weakest in Sweden either.

In the government's budget, which you supported, for example, money is not invested in municipalities and regions to the extent that it would actually be needed. You are cutting back on the care of the elderly and the sick. You are cutting back on the school, which is supposed to support the weakest students. It is a rhetoric that does not hold up to the scrutiny of reality, and I wish we would be spared from hearing it.

Sweden is one of the richest countries in the world. We can afford to have a good welfare policy where we support those who need help here and now in our country, without this being in opposition to helping those who need our support out in the world.

Then it becomes very strange. If one, as the Sweden Democrats, wants that aid should not be needed in the future, it is not now that one should scale back the ambitions. Right now we face huge challenges. If we do not solve them – that is, if we do not help each other to overcome the climate crisis, the migration flows, the war, the unrest and so on – it will only become even more expensive in the future, because the most expensive aid is that which is humanitarian.

How do the Sweden Democrats imagine they can solve the issue of not needing aid in the future when they are reducing the ambitions today?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Janine Alm Ericson and I view these matters very differently. It is clear.

Arguing that we need the money in Sweden is not particularly difficult. When I walk the streets of Stockholm, I see homeless pensioners every day. It is distressing. It is heartbreaking to help other people in need as well, but everything costs money, and the prioritization is as it is right now.

Yes, one has to pit people against each other. Aid costs. 56 billion would be enough to give every homeless person in Sweden two villas per person. But the prioritization we have made is still to be generous with aid, because we believe that it is something that will be better for the whole world in the long run.

Regarding the climate, we cannot solve everything ourselves. Even if we were to have zero emissions in Sweden, it would not affect the climate globally. We must do this work internationally. We are not the main culprits here.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Yasmine Eriksson, for the answers!

I am also outraged by the poor pensioners we have in Sweden. I am also outraged by the food queues that we are now seeing due to the skyrocketing inflation. In that case, one needs to have the right domestic policy, and that is where the government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, completely fails.

We have money. The state budget looks to have enormous surpluses this year. Demand then in the budget negotiations that more money should be allocated to the pensioners, that more money should be allocated to the welfare, and that houses should be bought for homeless pensioners and others who live out on our streets, for that is unworthy of a welfare country! But we do not remedy this by reducing aid. We remedy this through correct political and economic priorities in Sweden.

Climate aid is not about our own emissions, even though I know that the government and the Sweden Democrats want to reduce our ambitions. But it is about ensuring that we do not increase a fossil dependency out there in the world. It is about making sure that adaptations can be made so that no more people need to flee from their homes due to climate change, which also creates war and conflict. It also creates refugees. All these things are connected. We are just one world and have only one globe, and we should agree to do our best to save it.

When it comes to corruption and efficiency, there is basically no opposition here – we have no other policy. We also want to fight corruption in aid. Corruption is absolutely terrible, and every single krona must go to the right place.

Let us discuss efficiency! Making cuts and talking about office premises does not contribute to more efficient aid, rather the opposite.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Reducing unnecessary costs gives, I want to assert, definitely a more efficient aid. The money can go to those in need instead. We are also making investments regarding the climate. I do not quite understand where the argumentation is coming from.

We see the problems with large flows of refugees from different directions. It just gets worse and worse. It is there that we see that humanitarian aid is needed. We need to help where we can, where infrastructure can be built, so that people are not hit as hard. We must prioritize making some large interventions at a time, in fewer places. In that way, we can make the large interventions that truly mean a change for the people in the poorest and most affected countries.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Yasmine Eriksson, for the speech! The Sweden Democrats want to halve the international aid at a time when aid is needed more than ever - when poverty is increasing, democracy is retreating, and equality is being sidelined, the Sweden Democrats want to halve the aid. I think it is shameful, to say the least!

But not only that, you also want to change the direction of the aid. The member states in her speech that she wants to see effective aid. Then one should not make changes to the aid that aim for something else, for example to achieve migration policy conditions. It is a departure from the very basic principle of aid and contradicts the principle of effective aid.

In the Tidö Agreement, it is established that the government, within the framework of aid and development policy, shall among other things condition parts of the aid on the recipient country taking responsibility for its own citizens and repatriating them if necessary. How on earth is this supposed to work?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are reducing the aid budget in Sweden. Firstly, it does not have to mean that fewer people are reached when the work is done more efficiently. Secondly, we want aid to increase internationally and globally. We do not want Sweden to halve its aid and for the rest of the world to do the same so that there is less aid in total. No, we want to work in a way where we can exert pressure on the other countries, so that they actually help with their fair share and so that we get more money globally for all who need help.

Regarding migration, I think this is perfectly reasonable if we help a country so that it actually succeeds in managing better on its own. They then build up their country so that it is actually habitable. We have people in Sweden who have no other reason to be here than that they cannot be in the other country. But when that situation has changed, I think it is perfectly reasonable that one should take back their own citizens. If one does not do that, the question is: Are they really in need of this type of help then?

I do not quite understand Lotta Johnsson Fornarves' question.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. What you have devised together with the government regarding using migration policy in aid, so to speak, does not work. Shortly before the turn of the year, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) agreed on a clarification of the guidelines for international aid in migration issues. Point by point, it is made clear how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna agreed upon stands in direct conflict with the international regulatory framework.

For an effort to be categorized as aid, the main purpose must be development and welfare in low- and middle-income countries. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions for achieving the donor's own migration policy goals.

The aid platform Concord has in a meritorious way examined how the Tidö Agreement stands in relation to the OECD-DAC framework. The conclusion is that the Tidö Agreement is simply not feasible. It does not work.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! According to that rhetoric, apparently no aid is needed at all, because all aid given has an impact on our migration. If we were to give no aid at all, we would get much larger refugee flows and more migration to Sweden in the long run. That rhetoric does not hold together.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would begin by stating that all of us here today, regardless of party affiliation, want to help developing countries and poor people in the world. We want to see democracies in the world increase, not decrease. We want to counter oppression and support those who dare to stand up against authoritarian regimes. We want to see the principles of the rule of law and human rights receive more focus. We also want to see increased equality and that women are given greater opportunities to educate themselves in the countries where opportunities are unfortunately limited today.

We all agree on this. What we do not agree on, however, is how it should be done and how it should be financed.

Sweden has a long tradition of being a large, stable and loyal donor of aid. That is who we still are, regardless of what some representatives here say. I know that the opposition is now writhing and arguing that the government is actually lowering the aid budget from 1 percent of GNI to 0.88. I know and hear this. It feels somewhere that we do not need to continue to dwell on it. It just becomes mud-slinging, and it is not productive. All the people who are listening and watching the debate have heard this and know this - period.

What is also interesting is that no one in this chamber knows what results the government's aid policy will achieve. No one here knows. Why should we condemn it in advance? I think that instead we can state that it looks like this today, and then we can speak based on that.

Madam Speaker! Is a reduction of the aid budget the same as worse aid? I want to rephrase that question: Is a reduction of the aid budget the same as worse aid? Is quantity better than quality? I ask again: Is quantity better than quality?

This government's aid policy cannot be evaluated here today. I mean that Swedish aid will still enjoy a high reputation internationally, that other countries will continue to look up to us in the future, and that we are still one of the world's largest donors.

Let us talk a little bit about facts. Sweden's aid this year is 56 billion kronor. That is higher than the 52.5 billion that the aid landed on in 2022, when the aid was 1 percent of GNI. In 2021, the figure was 51 billion, thus 5 billion less than this year. I say this only so that we should keep it in mind.

We must look at the global perspective. Taken as a whole, the world's total aid is actually growing. Sweden is also one of the five countries that reach the UN's goal of providing at least 0.7 percent of GNI in aid. It is therefore only five countries that do this. We are one of those countries, and we should be proud of that. And we should keep that in mind when we speak here today.

Madam Speaker! The Government wants to make the new aid policy more effective, more relevant and more focused in order to achieve better results in the long run. Priority is given to humanitarian support, democracy, the climate, equality, trade, migration and Ukraine.

Developing countries are most affected by climate change, where poverty has consequences for peace and contributes to forced displacement. That the government is expanding the share of climate aid is necessary and welcome.

We Liberals will be careful that the aid is managed now that we have 0.88 percent. Before the election, we were clear that we wanted an aid budget of 1 percent. Now, together with the other government parties and the Sweden Democrats, we have agreed on 0.88 percent. Just like the Social Democrats, we also have the goal of returning to 1 percent, perhaps even in the next parliamentary term when we form a government.

But we will, as we have said, closely monitor how the aid money is used and what the results will be. We will also do what we can to ensure that women's right to go to school and LGBTQ issues will be prioritized.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals support the government's direction that a market economy creates economic growth. Effective aid focuses on market investments and investment-promoting measures. It guarantees favorable conditions for export and import.

The countries that today receive aid from Sweden want to move from poverty to wealth, and they want to strengthen their own economy and growth. They want help to develop trade relations and, in the long run, move from being a recipient country to becoming a donor country.

It must be in everyone's interest that countries receiving economic aid begin to produce themselves so that the aid can then be used elsewhere, in other countries or in other regions. It is actually only in the world of very naive politicians that Sweden can help the entire world. We cannot do that. There is only one wallet, and we politicians have a responsibility to manage the taxpayers' money in a good way. We Swedes are generous, and the vast majority want to help those who have it worse here in the world. I saw in a survey that 57 percent thought we had a good level in our budget - perhaps even higher. But these 57 percent also want us politicians to manage this in an efficient and good way. They want to see that the aid is used in the right way. And that is what they shall get with this government's policy.

I have met representatives from several different civil society organizations that work with aid, and I am impressed by their work, knowledge, and visions. They work locally, and they know what needs to be done to achieve results. Not infrequently, they have established good contacts with both aid workers and opposition politicians. Just the latter is important in the work for democratization. Small parties in regimes must receive support in order to be able to deliver and, in that way, be able to show the people that there is an alternative.

We Liberals want to reduce aid to multilateral organizations and increase targeted aid to civil society organizations. We believe that it provides better efficiency at a lower cost and, not least, with less administration. We also believe that the results of aid projects will be easier to follow up and that we can then learn from both bad and good results.

Offsetting is something we usually pick up in such contexts, even if it perhaps does not occur as often now that the government has decided that the offsetting shall stay at a maximum of 8 percent of the aid budget. Compared to previous years, I think it is a realistic figure. As we have heard earlier here today, it has indeed been higher on previous occasions.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying a few words about Ukraine. Europe's and Sweden's future lies right now in the hands of the Ukrainian soldiers. They are fighting for their freedom, for Europe's freedom, and for Sweden's freedom. We must never forget that. It is happening now, today. Shots are fired in trenches, and villages are being bombed. People are dying. It is real.

Therefore, we must not stop providing economic, military, humanitarian, and material support to Ukraine - never ever. We must also continue to support the Ukrainian people and the parliament in Kyiv in their reform work to accelerate the application and accession process to the EU. The reconstruction of Ukraine will cost enormous sums of money, and Sweden should be a strong contributor there. The price for Europe's freedom has no ceiling.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Martin Melin thinks we should stop dwelling on this regarding the one percent goal and put a full stop to it. I am sorry to disappoint the member, but it is a major shift in Swedish aid policy that a party like the Liberals, which has historically stood up for the one percent goal, is now abandoning it.

I appreciate that Martin Melin says that in the long run, one wants to restore this. I understand and respect that, but we have lost this negotiation. It is SD that is steering the ship on the other side. Even though they sit outside, they are still directing, and that negotiation has therefore resulted in us abandoning the one percent goal. It hurts, of course, for Martin Melin, but simply thinking that we should stop dwelling on things does not make the matter any less.

I would like to ask about equality. The Liberals are a party with a long, fine history of fighting for equality in Sweden. Barbro Westerholm, of blessed memory, Birgitta Ohlsson and Bengt Westerberg – there is a long line of Liberals who have stood up for feminism and equality. I wonder how Martin Melin and the Liberals view the government abandoning the feminist foreign policy. It is not just a matter of removing a label; it is also about abandoning instructions, plans, and programs. The female mediator network that was initiated and set in motion under the previous government has now been paused.

This has real consequences for Sweden's work for equality in the world. How do the Liberals view that Sweden is now abandoning the feminist foreign and development policy?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! What I meant by "ruminating" was that it feels as if the Social Democrats are constantly nitpicking the government and mentioning the figure 0.88, even though the difference against the Social Democrats' budget is only 0.03 percentage points. I believe I have heard it ten times here in the chamber now, and if there is anything that fuels contempt for politicians, it is politicians who constantly just ruminate on things.

State instead that this is how it is and that the Social Democrats are not one bit better when it comes to laying an aid budget! That is just how it is, and it almost makes me a little angry to constantly have to hear such things. People are not stupid. People understand that even the Social Democrats laid a lower budget. And if now SD, according to the Social Democrats, is running this government, I wonder who it is that is running the Social Democrats, if the figure 0.91 is nothing you stand for. Who is running the Social Democrats?

When it comes to equality, I cannot account for the various networks and so on that exist or have existed, because I know nothing about that. On the other hand, I know that in the aid policy, the aid budget, and the frameworks, a very great deal is invested in women and girls around the world, not least so that they can receive an education and go to school. That is equality policy in my world, if anything.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The difference in money is 2.5 billion kronor in the aid budget. It is 0.03 percentage points, as Martin Melin says. That is the difference. But there is a principled difference between us: You are getting into the same boat as the Sverigedemokraterna and governing together with a party that thinks the greatest enemy one has is liberalism.

In such a government, a liberal sits in the party. We would never come up with the idea of doing that. We will restore the one percent level in aid when we return to government power.

Regarding feminism, it is clear that Sweden has not ceased to work with equality. We work with SRHR and with women's health abroad and so on, but it is about the framework surrounding this, the feminist development policy that has ensured that every embassy and every foreign agency working with issues regarding aid and development policy has these glasses on. Now they do not need to have those glasses on. One loses focus, one loses direction, one loses momentum when one no longer has a feminist aid and foreign policy.

I would like to hear from Martin Melin if there is any problem with the word "feminism" specifically. Do the Liberals, just like the Sweden Democrats, feel that feminism is something one does not like? Is it a problem that it is designated specifically as feminist development policy?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Personally, I am not particularly bound by what things are named or called. I would rather see what it is instead. For me, feminism is equality, and I am for equality one hundred percent. I also want to see that the policy is equal, that is to say that the results of the policy become equal. For me, that is very important.

Now I lost my train of thought a bit, because I got stuck already at the beginning regarding the 2.5 billion. It is the case that 2.5 billion is quite a lot of money. The member counted up previously what it can be used for and how much good one can do with it. The problem is that for every person the member counted up, there are a thousand more who are sitting and waiting and do not receive any help. There is, therefore, no ceiling for how much one can help this world. So that is all.

I think Sweden is doing a good job. We are among the best in the world at providing aid, and therefore I do not think we need to stand here in the chamber, regardless of which party we belong to, and discuss 0.03 percentage points here or there. We are among the best in the world – can we not just be proud of that and make the best of it? There are other lists where we also rank highest and that we must move away from. The most shooting occurs in Sweden in the world. Young men are dying. That is a list we do not want to rank highest on, and we can work on that too.

I think we should be proud of the aid policy we have. We give this government a few years, and then we will see if it turned out well or not.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I too must unfortunately disappoint the members by stating that you will still face criticism for a broken election promise regarding 1 percent of bni to the aid.

It is probably not possible to escape the fact that politics, despite everything, is to some extent about repetition. When we think we have said something enough times, those outside this chamber have hardly begun to perceive it, so the Liberal Party will have to continue to answer why one defends the election promise.

Martin Melin asked a question about whether quantity is better than quality. It is obviously not, but quality and quantity are better. In Sweden, we also have, and are known for, world-class aid, so pitting these two against each other is also not really relevant, even though naturally not everything is perfect.

We will not stop pointing out that more efforts are needed in Swedish development cooperation, but of course, it matters what we do and what the government chooses to do. In this, we know very little in the chamber. Everyone is waiting for the government's reform agenda. But let me not just talk about the one percent goal and broken election promises, but I would also like to ask Martin Melin and Liberalerna what you prioritize in the negotiations regarding the reform agenda. What are you pushing for to create more effective aid? Do you know that precisely that yields more effect and that it does not just become empty words to sound good?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to working out the new reform agenda for aid, this is happening, as the member knows, on the other side of the channel in Rosenbad. The Liberals uphold what we have talked about before, namely equality and women's rights in the world. We see that democracies are becoming fewer, and we want to work with those issues. We stand up for hbtq persons' rights all around the world - we can see how they are getting worse. These are some examples of what we want to work with.

In the future, we will work to be a strong voice to ensure that the aid budget does not decrease in percentage. We will never abandon that work. I told a former member that we will be like a terrier on these issues. I still stand by that, and I know that my party comrades do the same.

Just as the member knows, it is about give and take when several parties negotiate, but we are working for it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Melin for the answers.

What is most disheartening about the answers is not which priorities you make. We both know that significantly more equality is needed, and it is a pity that the government has withdrawn not only the label of feminist foreign and development policy but actually also the plans and guidelines that already exist. It is a fact that the policy has lost momentum. You can take that with you into the negotiations.

We introduced the democracy offensive together in the January agreement during the last parliamentary term. It was an immensely important work, which we both stand behind. If we do not develop the world's democracies, the other development goals will not be reached either. The LGBTQI issue is also incredibly important. We shall support those who work in extremely strong headwinds.

These priorities would not even have been difficult for the Liberals to get through if one had chosen to cooperate with other parties than those who cooperate with the Sweden Democrats. One has invested in a cooperation where one actively counteracts one's own priorities.

I want to ask a question again. I know that the negotiations are taking place on the other side of the water, but I also know that the Liberals have people in their coordination office and people in the government. If this is a priority issue, one also ensures that there are results in the measurements. I look forward to hearing about the Liberals' successes because these are incredibly important issues.

You also say that you want to reduce the UN system. How is it that you want to reduce that which is the very skeleton of the international work to achieve a better world?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that we share the view on what is important: women's rights, LGBTQ issues and so on. The member said that we could have gone hand in hand with other parties. I say that the Green Party is welcome to instead vote with us, so it becomes easier to pass proposals in these areas. You are very welcome. We stand somewhere on the same side of the line, and then you are welcome. You are most welcome!

Then it was the question of the UN and why we want to reduce the multilateral organizations. It is because we would rather spend the money on the smaller organizations, which we believe – I say believe; we do not know, and the member does not know either – can mean that it becomes a more efficient work and above all measurable so that we can see the result in a different way. It is from results that we can see what works and what does not work. In a large organization, it is easy for results to disappear or be mixed up with other results – bad with good so that they look good. Smaller organizations that work more efficiently at a local level will show results – good or bad. Therefore, we believe that it is better.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 2, even though I, of course, stand behind all our reservations.

With a strained climate emergency, enormous global inequalities, a lack of basic democratic rights in many countries, and a lack of basic necessities such as clean water and healthcare, the needs for aid are enormous. Armed conflicts have become more numerous and more prolonged, and many countries have been hit hard by the economic consequences of the corona pandemic. For the first time in decades, poverty in the world is increasing. In 2022 alone, the number of people in extreme poverty increased to 719 million, according to the World Bank.

The need for international aid is greater than it has been in a very long time. In this very strained situation, the government chooses, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, to abandon Sweden's one percent goal and replaces it with a three-year goal set in kronor and öre. In a first step, aid is frozen just above the current level, but the forecast shows that it will quickly become a significant reduction in relation to GNI. It is to send the wrong signals to other aid donors, and it is a great betrayal of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. The government should instead reintroduce the one percent goal for Swedish aid.

Vänsterpartiet also does not want to see any offsetting of aid for refugee reception, which occurred both during the previous government and occurs during the current one, even though we note that the current government set a cap for the offsetting. The funds intended to go to aid should go to the world's poor, and therefore the Swedish government should work to change the framework within OECD-DAC in order to reduce the possibilities for offsetting for domestic refugee reception. It is also important that the offsets are reported in a clear manner. The government should annually return to the Riksdag with a communication where the offsets are reported clearly and transparently.

The Tidö Agreement also stipulates that aid shall be used as a tool to achieve migration policy conditions. This is a direct departure from the very basic principle of aid and conflicts with the principles of effective aid. It states that the government, within the framework of aid and development policy, shall, among other things, "condition parts of the aid on the recipient country taking responsibility for its own citizens and repatriating them when necessary."

Just before the turn of the year, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) agreed on a clarification of the guidelines for international aid in migration issues. Point by point, it is made clear how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna agreed upon stands in direct conflict with the international regulatory framework. For an intervention to be categorized as aid, the main purpose must be development and welfare in low- and middle-income countries. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals. The aid platform Concord has in a meritorious way examined how the Tidö Agreement stands in relation to the OECD-DAC's regulatory framework. The conclusion is that the Tidö Agreement is simply not feasible.

Climate change is already hitting many poorer countries hard and driving people to flee. The UN warns that extreme weather events are the new normal. The Government notes that the level of ambition needs to increase globally in climate work and that developing countries are hit hardest, where climate changes contribute to poverty and insecure food supply, which can also have serious consequences for peace and security. The Government should therefore draw conclusions from this and introduce additional climate aid in accordance with what the Vänsterpartiet proposes in its budget motion.

Climate goals must take precedence over short-term profit interests, and the wealthy part of the world must take its historical responsibility. To combine effective poverty reduction with ecological sustainability, investments are required in environmentally friendly and sustainable production of energy and food, as well as a transition to a more environmentally friendly transport and industrial sector.

We see how democracy and equality are heading in the wrong direction in the world. Human rights activists are finding it increasingly difficult to operate. Women have lost their jobs to a greater extent, violence against women has increased, and more women have fallen into poverty. Girls' access to education has decreased while female genital mutilation and child marriage have increased.

The government is now abandoning feminist foreign policy. It is completely the wrong path to take. Now there are also signals that the government is about to phase out important strategies. These are global strategies that pool efforts for equality, health, sexual and reproductive rights, clean water and sanitation, as well as education. Support for human rights and women's rights organizations living in extreme vulnerability in, for example, Guatemala and Myanmar is threatened. This makes me deeply concerned and upset. Vänsterpartiet wants to see that at least half of the aid is earmarked to support women and girls and that 10 percent is earmarked for SRHR efforts.

A group that is particularly vulnerable is hbtqi persons and their organizations. Hbtqi persons are persecuted and harassed in many countries. Despite the risk of losing their jobs, contact with family, and even their lives, people all over the world are organizing for their rights. These activists have courage and will, but they need support in often very difficult environments. The support for organizations working with hbtqi issues in poor countries is not extensive when measured in kronor today, but for the individual organizations, it is of decisive importance.

There are often obstacles to supporting LGBTQI organizations. In countries where same-sex relations are prohibited, there are great difficulties for an LGBTQI organization to even register, and many small LGBTQI organizations in poor countries have had difficulty meeting the high requirements for auditing and monitoring that Sweden imposes. For Sweden's efforts to be meaningful, it is therefore central that the projects and aid programs that are implemented are planned and monitored in dialogue with the LGBTQI movement in the country concerned.

The Government should return to the Riksdag with proposals on how the support to LGBTQI organizations can be strengthened and made more flexible.

Ukraine naturally needs to receive strong support from the rest of the world to rebuild the country, but the needs are gigantic. It is estimated to cost around 1,000 billion dollars - it is of course not possible to state any exact figure - while the world's total aid is less than 200 billion dollars. It is obvious that the world's countries must find other means than aid to assist Ukraine in the important work of rebuilding the country.

It is sometimes said, completely incorrectly, that aid is a black hole. Sweden today has a relatively good aid system that is both transparent and effective and is seen as a role model globally.

At the same time, there is almost no focus on capital and tax evasion as a black hole that deprives countries of hundreds of billions of dollars in lost tax revenues every year. Here, decisive action needs to be taken. We also need to introduce effective country-by-country reporting for multinational companies.

The change in Swedish aid that is now taking place is being made without any analysis, dialogue, or proper evaluation whatsoever. The last time the aid was changed, a proper analysis was conducted, and the transition was preceded by dialogue with both the Riksdag and aid donors on a broad front. Now the government is abandoning both the one percent goal and a largely well-functioning aid policy without any dialogue whatsoever. It is remarkable, to say the least.

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

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the contribution, which however left room for clarifications and perhaps a slightly deeper discussion on some of the matters the Member mentioned.

The Chairman mentioned that there are enormous needs all over the world, not least due to the pandemic we have had. There we are probably completely in agreement, not least when it comes to the humanitarian efforts that need to be made here and now to combat the extreme poverty and famine that we see all over the world.

But the question is how the world in the long run is to become a better place to live for all those people who today do not have the best living conditions. I did not think I heard as much about that from the member's side.

How shall we ensure that all the people who live in poverty today do not have to do so tomorrow? For me as a Moderate, the answer to that question is quite unambiguous. We have sometimes faced criticism for wanting a greater focus not only on export and investment promotion but also on deepening trade policy in general. It is no secret that we Moderates believe that market economy and trade are necessary for countries to move from poverty to prosperity. One cannot really discern any focus on that in the Left Party's budget motions or proposals in this report.

The aid policy perhaps should not be described as a black hole, but my question to the member is how we are to ensure that it eventually diminishes and contributes to more countries being able to stand on their own feet. Does the Left Party share the goal that the aid should eventually be able to be phased out, and how are we to ensure that these countries can stand on their own feet in the long term?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the questions.

Of course, the long-term goal of aid must be that countries become independent of aid and manage on their own.

It is not easy to answer the question of how to proceed in such a short time. One important thing is, of course, that there must be long-term perspective and predictability in the aid. It is not possible to make major changes in a short time; therefore, long-term development aid is extremely important.

Here we see how the government would rather invest in the more short-term humanitarian aid, and that is the wrong path to take. We must continue to invest in long-term aid where people are given the opportunity for self-sufficiency in a better way.

As I said earlier, I am absolutely not against trade, but it must take place on the recipient's terms. There is much that can be invested in to develop trade locally, for example, women's opportunities for economic independence.

Another important matter in aid is to continue supporting the multilateral system, which is a prerequisite for effective and good aid that is flexible and can be deployed quickly when needed, when a crisis arises. It is also a prerequisite for laying the foundation for cooperation with civil society organizations. They are dependent on each other, so to speak, so it is naturally very important.

An important matter is also to invest in equality and women. I mean that an investment in democracy and equality is a prerequisite for development in large parts of the world.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I am not quite satisfied with the answer as such.

We know what the Left Party's policy has led to in the countries where it has been fully tested. You still have the goal of planned economy and socialization of the business sector in the party program, I believe. We have seen horrific examples of what it leads to many times throughout history. No aid budget anywhere in the world will likely be sufficient to remedy the humanitarian catastrophe that the introduction of such an economic system on a broad front would entail.

There is not a single example in the world of aid alone having led to the eradication of poverty. To talk about long-term perspective, there are countries that Sweden has had a very long commitment to - we are talking many decades, perhaps 50, 60 or even 70 years - without us having seen the results that aid alone can possibly lead to.

The committee member was focused on human rights, and human rights are something very important. We are talking about combating corruption and ensuring that the principles of the rule of law are respected, and about encouraging these countries to introduce market economy reforms with a focus on trade and so on.

Thank goodness, it can still be said, that Sweden has not yet seen a purely Left Party aid policy and that we have not had the Left Party in government, with a decisive influence over aid! It is enough to go to the Left Party's own party-affiliated aid organization, Vänsterns Internationella Forum, to get a hint of what such aid could look like. Then we are absolutely not talking about human rights, but about support for rather shady, revolutionary, armed organizations that have zero respect for human rights.

But Lotta Johnsson Fornarve remains the answer liable. How are we to ensure that we achieve economic development in that part of the world which today is dependent on Swedish aid?

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet stands, in the large whole, for the aid policy that has been conducted in Sweden for a long time. We stand for the one percent goal, for democratic human rights and for equality. We are the party that has pushed hardest for us to allocate more support to precisely equality. We see, namely, that investments in equality, education and women and girls are incredibly important for development. We know that when women are given the opportunity for education and self-sufficiency, this has an effect for the whole society and the whole family. To claim otherwise, I think, is quite shameful.

Long-term perspective is essential. In order to see any major change in the long term, the aid must be predictable and run over a longer period. It is also about strengthening institutions and authorities in countries. But all of this takes time - it does not happen overnight. Therefore, it is important that the long-term perspective is maintained.

Support for the UN and multilateral organizations is also tremendously important for stable development.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! It is not quite visible in here, but it is actually finally our turn for real! And is it anything we need in all the darkness that the world is burdened with right now, it is a glimmer of hope and a little light on our heads.

Spring also means that the government will present its spring budget within a few days. We have already had a discussion specifically regarding the money that is estimated to go towards settlements for asylum costs. It will be very interesting to see how this will develop.

If the government should nevertheless decide to reprioritize already in the spring budget and bring the money back to aid, something that at least civil society has requested in recent times, it would mean that 1.2 billion would be returned. These are funds that can truly make a big difference for many people and which would also compensate for the reduction in aid that has been made. In that way, the government could also come closer to the goals it has regarding increased aid to civil society, funds for increased equality and democracy development, or perhaps more support for Ukraine – just to take a few examples.

I would, of course, like to take the opportunity to press that the one percent goal should be reintroduced. It was said here earlier that there is no ceiling for how much one can help people in the world. No – but there can actually be a floor. It is a valuation, and it is at least an investment, given that aid actually enables people to lift themselves out of poverty and instead be able to contribute to the world.

According to the UN, at least a doubling of global investments in sustainability would be required to achieve Agenda 2030. What is needed in this situation is therefore everything other than reducing the money. Instead, we see that a reduction is occurring globally, not least perhaps as a consequence of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

I really want to emphasize that Ukraine, as several have pointed out, naturally should have the support that is required. There is no contradiction there.

In addition to maintaining the level at 1 percent, we would also need to use the money as a lever. This is something that the government also agrees with. It means that the money we invest should create added value which in turn contributes to more added value - to poverty reduction, sustainable social structures and a sustainable democratic development. This can occur, for example, through greater cooperation with companies that can contribute to a positive development in different ways.

As I have said on previous occasions, it is, again, important to emphasize that it is the recipient's conditions that must be the starting point for the aid, not what we in Sweden can gain from it – even though it is naturally positive if we can all gain from it in the end. But it is the local community where the support goes that is to be built up, and it is there that the jobs shall be created and the rules set.

In the motions we are discussing in today's debate, the Center Party has contributed, among other things, with proposals on how priorities within Swedish aid could be made so that the money has as great an effect as possible. It is about creating sustainable jobs, working for climate transition and green energy, and working for democracy development and equality - long-term priorities that could truly fulfill the goals in Agenda 2030, reduce poverty, and increase people's opportunities for a safer life. Based on this, I would like to give some examples of what the 1.2 billion that could potentially be reprioritized could go towards - perhaps it can be seen as a tip bank.

One example is girls' education. Education is a tool that we know is one of the most effective for getting people out of poverty. We know that education strengthens people's participation in society and is a prerequisite for democracy and development. Girls' education in particular also increases equality, which, besides increasing justice between people in itself, is a factor that contributes to reduced poverty.

Another example is the climate transition. It does not need to be said: if the developments here in the world look dark when it comes to democracy, the reports on how the earth is doing and how the climate is developing are almost catastrophic. But everything is possible if one wants to and is prepared to work for it, so it is a matter of rolling up one's sleeves in all areas. Aid and support for climate transition around the world is a crucial key.

Another example is civil society and democratic development. It hardly needs to be commented on in this situation.

And if you want an example where all these goals are met simultaneously, it could be the investment in small-scale agriculture. We know that aid that goes to small-scale agriculture provides sustainable jobs. Small-scale agriculture involves civil society and builds structures that contribute to organizing. It increases engagement, contributes to democratic development, builds sustainable social structures and practically means that women are educated, involved and gain increased influence in society, which increases equality – as said, an important factor for reducing poverty and improving public health. Small-scale agriculture also increases food security in the world, not only locally but also globally, reduces hunger and, if used correctly, can contribute to the climate transition.

This is, as said, only one example among many. I know that the government has received a long list from civil society actors regarding things that could be done with these extra funds.

As said - it is spring, and despite the darkness in our world, the hope and commitment are great. The government will now present a spring budget, and the chance exists that one, even if one does not want to take those 1.2 billion, perhaps can make reprioritizations and add a portion to the aid.

I would like to conclude by saying that I naturally support the Center Party's reservations but move for approval only of reservation number 9, which concerns precisely the priorities for Swedish aid.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, around 100 million people live as refugees. At least as many are affected every year by disasters resulting from climate change. 70 percent of the world's population live in countries where human freedoms and rights are not fully respected. 700 million people live in extreme poverty, and many of them are women and children.

I could continue to rattle off figures about what the situation is for people all around the world for as long as I want, but what all these figures say is that after we have seen for decades how most things have moved forward regarding development in the world, it is now instead moving backward. Climate change, the pandemic, and now Russia's reckless invasion of Ukraine affect the whole world but hit the very weakest the hardest.

This can be met in two different ways. Either one can stick their head in the sand, take care of their local area, "put Sweden first" and let the rest be as it will be. Or one can look at the situation with open eyes and take responsibility for, as one of the world's richest countries, doing our part in building peace, equality, and democracy in the world.

For me and Miljöpartiet, the choice is simple. We want Sweden to also continue to be a strong voice in the world, a voice that stands up for solidarity, humanity and international law and a country that stands up for entered agreements, which lives up to its international commitments within the UN and other multilateral forums and that can be relied upon when it comes to putting the development of the very weakest first. There should be no doubt that development cooperation is guided by principles of efficiency and poverty reduction and is not conditioned on Sweden's business policy interests.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and almost all countries in the world stand behind the UN's negotiated Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030, the world's common plan for how we shall meet the climate threat and build societies that are better for more - or for everyone, because the agenda implies that everyone shall move forward and no one is left behind. From the government, it now sounds a bit as if we are hesitating on this.

But we know that it is possible to do this, that it is possible to achieve this change. We know that international agreements and conventions can move from fine words to action, from goals of eradicated poverty and expanded democracy to more mothers who every day put food on the table for their children and to more people who get to vote in free elections. Just a few years ago, our work moved in exactly that direction, and therefore we know in this chamber that together with many others we can contribute to a safer and freer world.

But we also know that more than ambitions and fine words on paper are required. Political will is required. Economic resources are required. And unlike the government's lack of ambition, we in Miljöpartiet want to deliver. We want to invest more in international development cooperation and international humanitarian aid. Because it is only through cooperation that we solve the crises that the world collectively faces. It is only through cooperation that we create peace. It is only through cooperation that we lift girls and women and their opportunities for a better and freer life. It is only through cooperation that we reduce the persecution of hbtqi-persons, human rights activists, persecuted journalists, and voices of dissent throughout the world.

That is why we want to raise the one percent target. We want to reduce the deductions and expand Sweden's ambitions. We stand in a time of destiny both for many individuals and for the planet, and then everyone must do more. By doing our part, we can also demand that others do theirs.

Madam Speaker! When the government now scales back its ambitions and shifts its policies, Sweden's voice in the world changes. We are no longer seen as the role model that has led the way to reach the climate goals and to achieve the emission reductions we have agreed upon, and we are also no longer seen as a role model in the fight for equality and for girls' and women's right to live free lives.

When it comes to the climate, the government, and thus the majority of the committee, claims that they will increase climate aid. That is good, and it is absolutely necessary. But vague wording that is not binding at all will not push other countries to agree to stop investing in fossil fuels and only invest in renewables. In every meeting room, we must get wording that closes the door so that our aid money can be used for the extraction of fossil fuels and products.

The question is whether this government has what is required – a government that itself has said regarding our own climate goals that if we do not reach them, we do not reach them. Will that government really prioritize climate work internationally, especially if it means fewer sold gas turbines from Swedish companies? I hope so. But as the writings look, I have my doubts.

According to the latest IPCC report and the collective expertise of the research world, we must do everything to reduce emissions here and now. Climate aid must increase to provide people and communities with clean energy sources but also so that we can adapt to the climate changes that are already here. Droughts and floods are already hitting many communities incredibly hard. In order for humanitarian aid needs not to increase dramatically, we must also have a sustainable food supply that can withstand a changed climate. Here, Sweden, not least through its civil society organizations, has an important role to play.

Madam Speaker! We do not really know what aid policy this government wants to pursue. The only thing we know for sure is that the budget item is decreasing and Sweden's efforts in the world with it. The measures that the government presents for aid look somewhat nice on paper, but not even in their own documents do words and actions match. There are countless examples - it has been brought up here earlier today - but the clearest is still the government's policy for girls and women.

They removed the feminist foreign and development policy because it was a label that meant nothing. Let that go, but now it turned out that they didn't just remove the label but also all the actual priorities that the work with the feminist policy entailed, all action plans, all instructions. We therefore do not know if it is being driven for increased equality anywhere anymore. We simply see none of it, and the effects for the world's women and girls will be enormous. The government writes that they want to safeguard international law, democracy, the principles of the rule of law and human rights, especially for girls and women. At the same time, they are therefore removing that which could lead there. Now the policy is not to be targeted towards women's rights, resources or representation. What will remain then?

Another example is that one says they want to support the principles of the rule of law, and then in Guatemala, they abandon exactly those people who are fighting against a repressive state in a harsh headwind. There are simply no others who are prepared to step in and support that struggle instead. The result is that voices fall silent.

Madam Speaker! UN organizations, other major international organizations, and civil societies all over the world have worked tirelessly for a very long time. Aid work that hits the mark takes a long time to build up, but unfortunately, it is destroyed far too quickly. The cuts that this government is implementing are not about a little money here and there on the margins. It is about efforts for peace, poverty reduction, and democracy that are now being put on pause. What is gladly reduced to anonymous projects in the government's talking points is, ultimately, schooling for girls and support for grassroots movements for freedom and democracy. And that is where it is also being reduced now.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about the atrocious war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. It may not be that much that I and the government agree on, but when it comes to Sweden's support for Ukraine, we are completely united. Ukraine shall receive all the support that we are able to give, in all ways we can – both civil and military, both now and later. Now, because it is important for all of us that Ukraine wins the war, and later, when Russia has left Ukraine, our support will still be needed to help rebuild the country. But our support for Ukraine shall not come at the expense of our other collaborations and support for development in other parts of the world. We can, and we shall, do both.

With that, I want to say that I stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only of reservation 4.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! The Member from Miljöpartiet is talking about the one percent goal, which they even want to increase.

I thought I heard some things in the speech that meet the policy that the government is about to implement in the area of aid. Therefore, I think it would be interesting to hear if the member can imagine supporting such a policy if the goals are met in the areas where we have common objectives, for example, to support women's and girls' rights, such as the right to education and freedom, all around the world.

When it comes to ensuring that environmental and climate work is included as a priority issue, the member and I visited Ecuador together, where we were able to follow UNDP's work. It was obvious that environmental and climate work in such a country will not come from the top down but must be built from the bottom up. Therefore, it is wise of the government to invest in strengthening civil society and local work. Sometimes this occurs in cooperation with organizations such as the UN.

My question to the member is: Why is the one percent goal an end in itself when one sees that there is now a direction in politics that meets several of the issues the member raised in her speech? She is very welcome to vote for the sitting government's policy.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the question! I will give a straight and clear statement: I will always vote for good policy within the aid area and within all other areas. If the government, against all probability I must unfortunately say, presents a very good product, we will of course support it. We have common interests and often want the same thing. We just believe in different ways to get there.

I do not believe that a good way to support a more equal world is to withdraw all politics, all instructions, and all plans to get this in place and project it out into the world. I do not believe that withdrawing it leads to more equality. But if a policy comes from the government that clearly shows how we are to strengthen equality and work with this, I am, of course, ready to support it any day. It is the policy that is what is important.

The committee members took up the joint journey we just made to Ecuador, which I believe taught us both a lot. It showed how incredibly important civil society is. One must work with people close to the ground and with a capacity and knowledge to act precisely there. Therefore, it is a bit sad to see that the government is now presenting an economic aid policy that does not support civil society.

Civil society also needs the UN organizations to be able to hold together and serve as a skeleton. The government is also cutting back there, so I would like to toss the question over to Katarina Tolgfors: How is the government going to be able to present a policy that reaches the goals when it cuts back on all the legs that could contribute to this?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! If we are now in agreement on what it is that we want to implement and what the needs are, I think it is strange that precisely the deviation from the one percent target should be an obstacle if the same thing can be achieved with fewer means. I am convinced that it can be.

One way to do this that we Moderates want to invest in is to make investments in sustainable companies the primary tool for poverty reduction, for example through an organization such as Swedfund. This is to invest in something that is long-term and where both knowledge and competence are built into a country's own system instead of entering temporarily with a project or with money and means that are good for the moment but which perhaps will not be lasting.

I would be very surprised if the Green Party and the member also do not think it is a good idea if we can reduce the funds but still reach the goals and the common issues that we want to drive within the aid policy. It would be welcome if the Green Party stood behind the government's policy. We want the same thing.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the answer!

What sets us apart is that I do not believe that the same results can be achieved with fewer resources, especially not with a development that we now see is going completely in the wrong direction. If we did not have climate change, if we had not stood on the other side of a major pandemic, and if we did not have Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we might have been able to adjust it a bit, because then we would have had extremely much better conditions.

Now we have extremely poor conditions, to speak plainly, which requires more resources and more commitment. This does not have to exclude that one streamlines or reviews it. It is clear that one must always ensure that one does the right things in the time one finds oneself in and that one has the right tools in place.

We believe that it is crucial that we now increase the ambitions in climate aid and that we increase the ambitions for women's rights, representation, and all parts, because we know that women are the enablers of change. The more we invest there, the faster we reach the other goals in the agenda. If we do not invest in climate, we will not reach a single goal, because then we will have an incredibly difficult time achieving any development at all.

When it comes to the business sector and poverty reduction, it is completely correct that we increased the guarantee instrument significantly when we were in government. We also invested more in Swedfund so that they could operate. It is the government's writings on how they want to expand this and do things in other ways that raise many questions for us. We see there, as several have pointed out earlier today, that it is not based on the needs on the ground. But if this is clear and distinct, it is clear that aid alone cannot solve the world's development problems. For this, it must lead to economic development.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the Foreign Affairs Committee's proposal in the report.

We have now for a couple of hours debated Swedish aid, and it is not the first time it has occurred in this chamber.

For a long period, Swedish aid policy was characterized by long Social Democratic government tenures. During the 60s and 70s, development took place with an ambition to create socialist models, and based on this, collaborations were formed with selected recipient countries.

During the years of the alliance, changes were made within the area of aid. With the help of country focusing and results reporting, it became easier to highlight the effects. A systematic strategy for the work within and the support for multilateral organizations was developed. Transparency and openness were marked both through a guarantee and by that citizens and interested parties could access statistics and available data with the help of Openaid. There was also a redirection of democracy aid.

We Moderates and the new government now continue the work of reforming Swedish aid with a focus on efficiency, transparency, and results-based management. As mentioned here in the chamber earlier, the government is leaving the one percent goal, which it would be welcome if more would stand behind. As has been said here: Reducing funds and resources is not always equivalent to getting fewer or worse results, on the contrary.

All organizations, and especially those tax-funded, benefit from being reviewed, reformed, and improved. This is actually something many organizations agree with when one holds a dialogue with them, which we actually do every week.

To settle for a status quo and in some way pursue some nostalgic social democratic aid policy is not the mandate that this government has for its aid work and the policy that we want to present.

With a three-year framework of 56 billion kronor per year, which means 0.88 percent of GDP for 2023, Sweden remains one of the largest contributors in the world.

Madam Speaker! It is important not to get locked into a level where the aid money that Sweden contributes does not come to use where it is most needed and in countries that fulfill basic democratic principles and safeguard human rights. Swedish aid shall not be unconditional.

Madam Speaker! The different parts of aid are governed by different principles and can, in broad terms, be divided into two parts: humanitarian aid and development aid. Humanitarian aid constitutes the true core of aid and takes its starting point in the ambition to save lives, alleviate distress, and reduce suffering resulting from crises, wars, and disasters. The purpose of development aid is to contribute to democratic development in the long term.

For us Moderates, humanitarian aid is the absolute most important and something that will always be needed. It is based on all people's equal value and dignity as established in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and in the European Convention. Therefore, we Moderates want the humanitarian aid to continue to be extensive and increase as a total share of the aid, both that which is given bilaterally and that which is given multilaterally within the framework of the international humanitarian system.

Madam Speaker! We shall also continue to contribute to countries being able to develop and be strengthened in the long term. Development cooperation shall be used as a lever to promote business, entrepreneurship, trade, and development cooperation with other countries. An increased focus for poverty reduction shall be to realize it from external economic growth and through market-oriented and sustainable investments. This is something that lies in the Moderate policy and ideology and which throughout history has shown itself to be the way that allows countries to actually develop and move from poverty to prosperity and be able to support themselves.

Madam Speaker! During the spring, I had the privilege of representing the Moderates in the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York with the Swedish UN delegation. I was also recently in Latin America and followed UNDP's work in Ecuador, where we met entrepreneurs in the Amazon and also government officials and representatives for civil society. Ecuador is a country with great potential, a so-called middle-income country, but a country where development is heading in the wrong direction in several areas. Trust in politics and institutions is extremely weak, deadly violence is increasing, organized crime has taken a strong grip, and violence and oppression against women and girls has escalated.

That is how the development looks in several parts of the world. It appeared clearly in the work with the Women's Commission. Therefore, I am extra happy that my party, in the reform work with aid, highlights women's and girls' rights and freedom as a thematic priority area. A society without equality where women and girls are restricted and do not get the same life chances as men and boys is not a strong society. On this, I can agree with several other speakers here today.

Organizations such as the UN, together with several civil society organizations and local actors, perform valuable and important efforts in Latin America, on the African continent, in Asia and in Europe.

I too shall conclude my speech with the obvious fact that it is of the utmost importance that we continue to support Ukraine and its population in all the ways we can - humanitarily, militarily and economically. It will require a great effort from many over a long period. And Sweden shall be with us all the way forward until we see that there is a stability for Ukraine but also in Europe.

When we now see that developments regarding democracy, freedom, human rights, rule of law principles, and equality are being rolled back in several places, Sweden shall set stricter requirements on reforms for democracy and human freedoms and rights in the countries that receive Swedish aid. And we shall have an aid model that effectively ensures that Swedish aid contributes to combating poverty and creates conditions for better living standards for people living in poverty and oppression. Sweden is still one of the largest donors in the world, and we shall continue to be a strong voice in the world and take leadership in issues concerning the development in our global environment.

Madam Speaker! It would be good if more parties in the Swedish Riksdag followed the line of moving away from having a goal of 1 percent or 2 percent and instead look at what we want to achieve with Swedish aid and how we do it in the best way. We have tried a model for a very long time. The world is changing, and it is time to reform Swedish aid so that more people in more countries can have it better and so that the money reaches where it should and where the needs are greatest.

International development aid

I therefore wish to once again move for the approval of the proposal in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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