Report on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have to deal with report UU3, which concerns a results statement on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations. It is therefore about what effect that part of Sweden's aid has that goes through multilateral organizations, for example, various UN bodies.

This communication comes from the previous Social Democratic government, and we Social Democrats think, perhaps not entirely surprisingly, that the communication is good and that the direction of aid via multilateral organizations would have been well-considered and purposeful. But now there is a different majority in the committee and the Riksdag since the election and a new government, so we Social Democrats refer to our special opinion in the report.

There is much that sets us apart when it comes to aid policy. To give up the one percent goal, abandon the feminist foreign and aid policy, and completely overhaul the aid policy without any anchoring, impact assessment, or dialogue with relevant actors, and without a defined new reform agenda, we believe is wrong.

Report on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations

But there are also things that unite, for example that Sweden's aid should be effective, that it should reach the goals that the government and the Riksdag set up and that it should be results-oriented. This we are of course in agreement on. We therefore welcome this letter, which focuses on precisely the result of Swedish aid.

But we Social Democrats consider it a mistake on the part of the government to cut back on, for example, core support. These are, so to speak, the unmarked funds that go to, for example, UN agencies. The multilateral and the bilateral aid are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and it has been very successful. Through a strategic commitment, Sweden has achieved impact for Swedish political priorities and thus greater leverage for the aid funds. The financial support has been converted into projects and programs that have created better living conditions for people living under poverty and oppression, even in countries where the Swedish bilateral aid does not reach.

Sweden's support through multilateral organizations has contributed to our overall goal for development cooperation and humanitarian aid in a world with large and growing challenges. Targeted core support has contributed to strengthened defense of human rights, more democratic societies, strengthened accountability and the rule of law, as well as improved rights in the workplace.

Multilateral aid has also been very important in the aftermath of covid-19. Beyond the immediate and extensive health crisis, the pandemic has also had major and far-reaching humanitarian and socio-economic consequences. Development has in many ways been set back by decades due to the pandemic. The pandemic reversed a previously positive global development in several areas, such as mothers' and children's health, equality, and poverty reduction, which is why continued substantial core support is important.

Core funding has also contributed to the multilateral actors being able to act flexibly and promptly to meet the needs of the most exposed and vulnerable. For example, when the Taliban suddenly, faster than anyone could have anticipated, take back power, the UN can be on the spot quickly. When Russia attacks Ukraine and a major war breaks out in the middle of Europe, or when an earthquake destroys lives and communities in Syria, core funding is important for the UN to be able to act flexibly.

Swedish multilateral support has strengthened women's and girls' influence and enjoyment of human rights and contributed to reducing the occurrence of gender-related violence. It is very regrettable that the SD-led, Moderate-led government is dismantling the feminist foreign policy. It is bad that they are cutting the core support which is an important tool for realizing increased rights, better representation, and increased resources for girls and women in poor countries; for example, UN Women receives 25 percent less.

The previous Social Democratic government's advocacy work, based on feminist foreign policy, has been an important counterweight to the growing forces that have wanted to turn equality work back globally. Unfortunately, we now see how Sweden is taking steps backward.

And it is not only UN Women that is affected. Overall, support to UN agencies is decreasing by approximately 15 percent. Among these agencies, notably Unaids, whose contribution is reduced by 30 percent, and the population fund UNFPA and the development programme UNDP, whose support is cut by 25 percent. Core support to the UN Peacebuilding Fund and the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs is decreasing by approximately 40 percent.

We believe this is a big mistake. It means that Sweden's voice in the world becomes weaker, that the UN becomes less effective and flexible, and that poor and vulnerable people in the world get worse opportunities to break out of precisely poverty and vulnerability.

Multilateral aid is also an investment in the rules-based world order and the multilateral system. This system and this world order are now being challenged and undermined by undemocratic forces, authoritarian states, narrow nationalism, and populism. It is precisely now that countries like Sweden need to step forward and lead by example, invest in the multilateral system and aid, maintain core support for the UN agencies, and have high ambitions for the UN.

We Social Democrats regret the path that the new government has chosen to embark upon and refer, as stated, to our specific statement in the report.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 5.

The report on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations, which we are debating today, concerns the majority of Swedish aid. The aid channeled through multilateral organizations increased significantly during the period covered by the report, from approximately 59 percent of the Swedish aid budget in 2019 to approximately 67 percent in 2020. Financially, Swedish multilateral aid increased from approximately 29 billion kronor to approximately 39 billion kronor.

The Tidö parties' ambition for aid signifies a paradigm shift within aid - a paradigm shift that steers away from the one percent goal, which signifies a necessary and historical reforming of an outdated policy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's budget is not infinite, and the task of politics is to prioritize. The Sverigedemokraternas view is that we cannot have a policy area that is governed by an expenditure target. No other area has been allowed to run wild like aid. It is not a responsible way to spend the taxpayers' money.

The Sweden Democrats believe that aid should be governed by a result goal and not by a disbursement goal. Swedish aid policy has lacked transparency and follow-up of the goals.

The Sweden Democrats want to make aid more effective. Sweden's aid has often missed the mark and sometimes actually contributed to making the world worse instead of better.

The money spent on aid should go to the most vulnerable people. In a world where the needs are endless, it is important that we ensure that Swedish taxpayers' money goes to those aid efforts where it does the most good and where we can see a real measurable effect.

Mr. Speaker! The UN, with its various organizations, has contributed to economic development in a long series of poor countries and to alleviating the consequences of natural disasters and conflicts, but the UN also faces major problems.

There are too many UN organizations today and they have too high overhead costs. We are reached by recurring indications of corruption regarding finances, allocation of services, and support to different countries. Sweden should work for mergers of UN organizations with the aim of reducing administration, overhead costs, and duplication of work to achieve higher cost-effectiveness. Sweden shall continue to be one of the large donors per capita to the UN system, but we should reduce the number of UN organizations that we contribute to.

It is not reasonable that the UN has an entirely separate body for Palestinian refugees when other UN organizations can handle it. UNRWA has repeatedly been caught spreading antisemitism and violence-promoting extremism, and its dealings with terrorist organizations such as Hamas are well-documented.

Sweden should work towards phasing out UNRWA and instead transfer its operations to other UN organizations, and primarily to the UN's main refugee organization, UNHCR.

A review and analysis of the core support to the multilateral organizations is required in order to be able to take a firm position on where the Swedish aid funds do the most good. The Government should also, in future reports on multilateral aid, more clearly report to what extent the implementing parties comply with Sweden's strategy and objectives in the field of aid.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The subject of today's debate is the policy pursued so far within the aid area regarding Sweden's financial support to various multilateral aid organizations during the years 2019 and 2020. The background is that the Riksdag has felt it has been difficult to assess what the multilateral support has looked like. The Government has therefore, since a few years back, been making a special report.

The communication has been processed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and, unsurprisingly, there are both pros and cons to distribute. It is important to remind that it is the previous government's policy that is being scrutinized.

Let us begin with what is good and what I expect the new government will continue with.

It is good that Sweden has taken a large responsibility for financing the multilateral cooperation organizations. The advantage of channeling aid through the UN's various bodies is that the support becomes more organized for the recipient countries. I personally always find it difficult to get an overview of the overall aid policy for Sweden's part. But I assume it is just as difficult when one sees it from the recipient side.

It has also been good that Sweden has held the flag high and wanted to challenge other countries to also finance the multilateral organizations. There is a suspicion towards them because they sit in New York and other places far away from those who finance them.

Furthermore, we know that corruption has occurred and likely still occurs within the UN. This is a major problem for the credibility of aid.

Generally speaking, coordinated multilateral efforts are good, and Sweden clearly stands for this. It will therefore not be as Member of Parliament Thorell claimed in his speech, that the upcoming multilateral aid policy will totally collapse with a new government.

But let us also speak about the problems. One of them is the total volume that is channeled through the multilateral organizations. How do we know when it is at the right level?

In the communication we are debating today, it is stated that multilateral aid accounted for 67 percent of the total aid budget, i.e., 39 billion for the year 2020. There is no justification for why this should be the correct level. Somewhere, one is approaching the upper limit where we should not allocate more to multilateral support, but where is that limit? I note that the communication cannot explain this, and one wonders then if the previous government has even reflected on the matter.

In the same way, there are question marks regarding Sweden's prominent role when it comes to support for various organizations.

Let me take a couple of examples. During 2020, Sweden was the largest donor to the World Food Programme with 1.6 billion kronor, which corresponded to 22.8 percent of the total core support to that organization.

Sweden was also, during the same year, the largest donor to the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR with 1.2 billion kronor, which corresponded to 13.3 percent of the organization's core funding.

Furthermore, Sweden was the second-largest donor to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, with 1.3 billion kronor, corresponding to 15.8 percent of the organization's core funding.

Sweden is therefore not just a large donor, but in many cases the largest, despite being a small country. It is of course not wrong of Sweden to want to be the best in class, but are we? What is it that makes other countries make completely different assessments?

The government's communication does not explain why it is that way. It is a deficiency, because we cannot assume that other countries – countries that we otherwise always compare ourselves with – are wrong. We cannot assume that Denmark, the Netherlands or France have a worse multilateral aid policy than Sweden.

Another problem with the previous government's reporting concerns the overall picture of the multilateral cooperation and the transparency.

The aid policy generally suffers from being opaque and difficult to understand for those who want to see how the tax money is used. The multilateral part is no exception here. To a large extent, one as a representative of the public must rely on the fact that the many cooperation projects have been established in the correct order and receive good reviews from the audit. But that is not the case. When the Swedish National Audit Office, during the same period as the letter concerns, audited the government's multilateral aid policy, it was very critical.

I quote: "It does not appear from UD's underlying material what circumstances have been decisive for the government's decision regarding core support. For example, it does not appear how strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks with a certain core support or a certain multilateral organization have been weighed in the decision or influenced the proposed levels of core support."

Furthermore, it is said: "It is also difficult to know what results the core support may have contributed to because UD does not perform any consolidated documented follow-up of individual core supports or organizational strategies."

Mr. Speaker! The criticism may be said to be harsh, and the former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson agreed that unfortunately, that was how the state of affairs appeared. For in the government's response she wrote:

"The Government partially agrees with the assessment that the underlying data for Sweden's decision on nuclear support could be clearer."

However, the Swedish National Audit Office did not direct any major criticism towards the multilateral cooperation that takes place through Sida.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish aid policy does not lack heart. It also does not lack will. The high ambition is good, and it will continue with the new government. But there are still many questions regarding how well this works, questions that I believe most wish there were answers to.

Is it right that as much as two-thirds of the aid budget goes to multilateral cooperation? How do we know that it is the right level? If core support is the best form of aid, why don't all the funds go there? Swedish multilateral aid policy is different compared to all other countries. How is that? And is it not troubling that the National Audit Office, after much searching, cannot find grounds that explain how the government's various initiatives on multilateral cooperation came to be?

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is now abandoning the one percent goal for aid. Sweden is no longer pursuing a feminist foreign policy or aid policy. Sweden is cutting support to UN agencies. Unaids receives 30 percent less. UN Women receives 25 percent less. Peacebuilding Fund, which works with peace-promoting and preventive measures, receives 40 percent less. Core support is decreasing. Otherwise, we see how aid to Myanmar is cut by 60 percent. Aid to Palestine is halved. Taking in quota refugees is perhaps the ultimate expression of solidarity with the most vulnerable in the world. Sweden is moving from having taken in 5,000 quota refugees to taking in under 1,000.

I wonder: What is the signal that the government parties want to send to the rest of the world?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I just want to point out that today's matter is about reviewing the previous government's policy and not the upcoming aid policy, even though I have understood that it is what Member Thorell wants to talk about.

Then I shall briefly answer some of this.

It is quite true that the new majority is abandoning the one percent goal because we do not have as a goal to pay out as much money as possible. On the other hand, the aid budget is still very large. It will be at 56 billion kronor per year for the next three years. It is not a full percent, but it is still very much money.

The Social Democrats do not follow the one percent goal in their budget proposal either, so I do not quite understand the criticism on that point.

Sweden is naturally not dismantling the multilateral aid policy in any way just because certain changes are being implemented. It is a matter of shifting things around in the aid budget, but that naturally does not mean that anything is collapsing. As I stated in my speech, we allocate approximately two-thirds of our aid budget to the multilateral organizations. The great threat that the UN would now have no money to move with at all actually appears to be somewhat exaggerated.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member wants to downplay the effects of the cuts, but I wonder: What are we in Sweden to say when we meet the UN Women representatives and when we meet the UNDP, which receives significantly reduced support from Sweden?

I will try to be concrete to stick to the matter, as we are going to do here. I would then like to ask: Which quarter of UN Women's activities is unnecessary?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My own experience of politics comes from the local level. I am a former regional politician, and I have many times been faced with a situation where one must tell the recipients of funds that it will not be as much as they had envisioned in the near future and sometimes even that money has been removed because one has prioritized another part of the budget. Then one says it honestly: We have chosen to prioritize another pressing purpose.

If one cannot make those types of prioritizations, one probably shouldn't be a politician. If one doesn't do this, one must go to the others and say that they won't get any money. We must always choose between different alternatives.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the first time in decades, poverty in the world is increasing. A hunger catastrophe is currently taking place. According to the UN, 345 million people suffer from acute malnutrition, a figure that has more than doubled since 2019. At the same time, democracy and equality continue to decline. The reason is a series of global crises, the climate crisis, the corona pandemic, and a growing number of wars and conflicts.

When the world finds itself in this extremely vulnerable situation, the government chooses to reduce aid, abandon the one percent goal, and cut back on support to the UN and core support. This is nothing other than shameful and a hard blow to the people who are having it the hardest in the world.

Mr. Speaker! Violations of women's rights are the most common and extensive crimes against human rights. All over the world, women's lives are restricted by discriminatory legislation and social norms. Gender discrimination is a major cause of poverty. And women, who most often have the actual responsibility for the family's livelihood, often lack the most basic rights.

In the document, it can be read how 2020, instead of becoming a milestone year for equality, was characterized by a regression for global equality. One reason was that the corona pandemic hit women and girls hardest, but there was also an active resistance against the human rights of women, girls, and hbtqi persons.

The UN estimates that violence against women has increased by 20-30 percent during the pandemic. This includes both domestic violence and political violence against women. Women's opportunities for livelihood have decreased, and women earn significantly less than men. Every year, 12 million girls under the age of 18 are forced to marry. And during the pandemic, child marriage has increased significantly, just as have female genital mutilations.

Fewer girls are going to school. In low- and middle-income countries, closed schools and cancelled education have led to up to 70 percent of ten-year-olds being unable to read or understand a simple text. This is an increase of 17 percent since the pandemic started. The education crisis hits girls the hardest.

Women's rights are a key to development. Increasing women's opportunities for education and livelihood contributes to improving the individual woman's position and promoting equality in general, which contributes to the development of the entire society. The gender equality perspective must be put into practice throughout the entire Swedish multilateral development cooperation. Sweden should therefore aim for at least 50 percent of the multilateral aid to go to girls and women.

Sweden should also work to ensure that the EU, relevant UN bodies, the World Bank, and the regional development banks strengthen their gender equality work with the goal that at least 50 percent of all development cooperation shall go to girls and women.

We have also seen a regression regarding access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, SRHR. One example is restrictions on abortion rights in several countries, even in our neighborhood, for example in Poland. Even in some states in the USA, women's right to decide over their own bodies has been restricted.

According to the communication, the total Swedish support to SRHR amounted to 3.2 billion SEK in 2020, which corresponded to 6.1 percent of the total aid. It is not sufficient. The need for increased commitment to, for example, prevent maternal mortality and increase access to sex education and modern contraceptives is very great, not least because such things were often forced to take a backseat during the corona pandemic.

There is also a clear connection between armed conflicts and increased maternal mortality, child marriage, and sexualized violence. Today, several protracted conflicts are ongoing around the world, and more people than ever before are currently in flight. The needs are enormous in conflict areas and refugee camps.

We mean that at least 10 percent of Sweden's total aid budget should be earmarked for SRHR. This is a goal that the international parliamentary conference on the implementation of the Programme of Action from the UN Conference on Population and Development also supported in its final declaration, the Stockholm Statement of Commitment. The same objective should apply to the funds that go to multilateral aid. The Government should ensure that the proportion of multilateral aid allocated for work with SRHR amounts to at least 10 percent of the multilateral aid, as well as work within the EU and the UN to ensure that other aid donors follow Sweden's example.

To reduce support to the UN and cut back on core funding, as the government has signaled, is also not effective aid. Core funding allows for a flexibility that is required in a changing world with escalating crises and conflicts. A clear example is the corona pandemic, which required a great deal of flexibility and acute interventions. The UN is the organization that is on the ground both before, during, and after crises.

The UN is present in the most vulnerable countries where others have difficulty operating, such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Yemen and many other countries with protracted conflicts. It becomes difficult to act responsibly as a donor without having continued extensive support for multilateral actors.

The UN body UNDP was the organization that had the most extensive operations in Ukraine when the invasion occurred, which was extremely important for securing support at an early stage of the conflict. It also facilitated for other humanitarian organizations to be able to quickly establish themselves in the country. UNDP was also crucial when it came to negotiating the establishment of humanitarian corridors in the worst-affected areas.

In other words, the UN plays an important coordinating role in the world. A large part of the funds channeled through the UN also go towards supporting women, something we heard earlier here. Strong core support is not in contradiction to strong support for civil society, but on the contrary, these supports are a prerequisite for one another.

Core funding is needed for multilateral aid to be conducted in a long-term and effective manner. Core funding is also more democratic as it is the organs' decision-making assemblies that control the budgets instead of the countries that pay the most. In the communication, we can read how Sweden has worked to ensure that certain priorities such as democracy, SRHR, climate, and environment gain traction in multilateral contexts. We think that is very good, and we welcome it.

The financing of the UN's activities should also be reformed to favor core support. Sweden has, as one of few countries, continued to provide significant core support to several of the multilateral aid donors and is often highlighted as a positive role model. Sweden should work to ensure that more countries increase their core support to multilateral aid. Sweden's government should rather rethink and not cut the core support.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 1.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The aid is now being reformed, which is necessary. The government parties are working out a reform agenda for the aid, and all parties in the government base agree that the aid shall be focused and effective and that a larger proportion shall be channeled via civil society.

Multilateral organizations have essential functions in the world. These organizations, such as the World Bank and various UN bodies, have a great impact on economic development, the fight against poverty, and the promotion of human rights in the poorest parts of the world. This work is something that we Christian Democrats cherish, and multilateral organizations will be important to achieve the ultimate goal of all aid, namely that it will no longer be needed.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs received criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office, and that is what we are discussing regarding this report. Despite the fact that individual core supports were followed up on, this follow-up was not documented either systematically or strategically. There was therefore a lack of an overview of the multilateral organizations' results and how core support contributed to achieving the Swedish aid goals. It was thus not possible to follow how the Swedish money has been used.

In order for the aid to have the quality required to effectively combat poverty and oppression, thematic priorities must be made by all parts of the Swedish aid. As a consequence of this reform work, Kristdemokraterna will work to concentrate the multilateral organizations that receive aid from the Swedish side. The selection of organizations that receive a share of core funding are those that work with areas that Sweden believes provide added value to the work, which will increase the efficiency of the aid work.

We Christian Democrats are of the conviction that a larger share of the aid should go through civil society actors. Channeling the aid through a sometimes sluggish and many times inefficient UN system is a way of using tax money that we need to be vigilant about. It risks, in fact, undermining the legitimacy of the aid policy. With that said, I still want to emphasize that sometimes the UN system is the only possible way to reach the most vulnerable people in different parts of our world.

Mr. Speaker! The aid framework is 56 billion kronor over the next three years. 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, an expanded and streamlined climate aid, as well as the rights and opportunities of women and girls. In accordance with these priorities, we believe it is necessary to make strategic selections of which multilateral organizations Sweden engages in.

For many people, what Sweden does can actually be the difference between life and death, between oppression and freedom. Therefore, it is important that our commitment and our resources are used in a way that does the most good.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in report UU3.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate Magnus Berntsson's and the Kristdemokraternas commitment to aid issues.

It is not strange that a new government and a new majority want a different character for the aid policy. It is completely natural and understandable. But I still jump a little bit over how the new direction is being developed and how one proceeds. It feels to me as if the government and the governing parties are working in a backward way. It is said that a new reform agenda is to come, and the Sverigedemokraterna member mentioned here that there will be a paradigm shift. They want to see a completely new direction and will therefore introduce a reform agenda.

The reform agenda, however, has not been seen by anyone yet. I wonder if Member of Parliament Berntsson knows where it went and where in the pipe it is located. To me, it appears that one is starting with large-scale handouts and huge changes in aid. One abandons the one percent goal, and one has a completely different view on multilateral aid. One says that one shall merge trade and aid. It sounds good to merge, but what does it actually mean? We get no answers when we ask.

I therefore take the opportunity to ask Member Berntsson when this reform agenda will be available. Is it in some office drawer? Is it under development? Will we see it, and if so, when?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Thorell for the questions.

As I emphasized in my contribution, the reform agenda is something that is being worked on right now. It is very important that this is done, and it will come back both to actors in the aid field and to us here in the chamber along the way.

I would, however, like to emphasize that there are actually some clear parts that we are basing this on. In connection with the government negotiations, which resulted in the document called the Tidö Agreement, there is an agreement called Bana för biståndet (Path for Aid). There are these guidelines, where it clearly states that a larger share of the aid should go through civil society actors. That is something that we Christian Democrats consider to be very important.

It makes me a little worried to see the budget proposal that the Social Democrats submitted. They are positioning themselves at almost exactly the same level as the government parties do in the budget – we are at 88 percent of the GDP, and the Social Democrats are at 91 percent of the GDP – while at the same time safeguarding multilateral support very much. When one is at such a similar level, it actually means a significant reduction for civil society actors.

We therefore have much to discuss from both sides here, I would like to say to Member Thorell.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin with the question regarding the one percent target.

We Social Democrats, in contrast to the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals, stand firm on the vision that we shall allocate one percent of our income to poor countries in the world. Then, we will not allocate that amount next year, but we will allocate more than the government does - 2.5 billion more than the government. In my world, 2.5 billion kronor is not pocket change, but it is a substantial difference.

We will restore the aid to the one percent level, just as we did after the 90s crisis. During that crisis, we lowered the level to 0.7 percent, to return to 1 percent in the beginning of the 2000s.

Regarding the reform agenda, we will have to wait and see when it is presented. But even if there is an annex to the Tidö Agreement, I still do not think it is an anchored, well-thought-out, and scientifically based agenda that is to be presented. Reflection, referral processes, and dialogue with relevant actors are needed to present an agenda. I think the work is being done backwards here.

Then I would like Magnus Berntsson, in his final remark, to clarify this with more money for civil society. If you ask the civil society actors themselves, you will indeed hear that they notice they are receiving less money than last year, not more. We have received the explanation that it is a larger proportion than before, but it is still less money. How do you explain that to civil society so that it is understandable?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have many things to comment on during these last two minutes, but I actually want to start by correcting Member Thorell. He says that we Christian Democrats do not stand behind the vision of a one percent goal, but we definitely do.

Unlike the party that Olle Thorell represents, we have been sitting and negotiating with other parties. Our starting position was quite clear, and the starting positions of other parties were also quite clear. We ended up at a level that is not the one we wanted to end up at, but it is a high level.

The problem that Member Thorell has to explain to the Chamber and everyone else is that in his party, they did not negotiate with anyone else but only with themselves. Still, they failed to reach the level that they say they safeguard and want to return to. I truly hope that we will see that, even though the Social Democrats during the coming years may have to continue to negotiate with themselves in their budgets. We must follow this very closely.

I also want to emphasize another thing. In the budgets that have been presented in recent years, quite large deductions have been made from the aid budget, which has had great significance, not least for civil society actors, because the multilateral agreements were already written. It is actually a very concerning situation for these actors.

I hope I expressed that it is precisely the proportion of the aid that goes to civil society actors that should increase. We think that is important.

I am sorry if I missed answering any of the members' questions. I thank you for the discussion.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start with two words: feminism and equality. One is a word that still today provokes some, and the other is a concept that we are all proud to associate Sweden with.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is not the words that are important, but the content. Let us therefore set the word "feminism" aside and talk about what it actually is about!

What is needed and what is crucial is that we drive a change of the structures that, at all levels and in different contexts in society, systematically in different ways exclude and oppress individuals who are born with female sex. It is not enough to just work for women's rights a bit here and there, but in every situation we must ensure that there are women included in the process.

It concerns when decisions are made about interventions, when decisions are made about planning the reconstruction of communities, and when it concerns how, where, and why infrastructure shall be built. We must not only see that women have a decisive role in maintaining society's functions in countries with conflicts, but we must also ensure that we act based on that.

We assume that the government, or rather all parties in the Swedish Riksdag, agree on this. The problem is that it is not seen in that way in many of the countries that receive aid, and therefore Sweden must take the lead.

When we had a visit from a number of women's rights organizations from Ukraine before Christmas, they told us about their work in the war, how women and women's rights organizations are the ones who make society function at all when the men have to go out to war, and how women and girls are subjected to violence and other things in the war in various ways. We noted that we had a number of strong women here who are actually fighting for our rights. We wondered: What can we do, beyond the obvious of supporting with weapons, money, supplies, and general support in our thoughts?

One of the women said without blinking: You in Sweden can do this with women's rights. Help us not to be excluded in the various processes that are ongoing! See to it that we are not forgotten! Value our efforts to maintain society and our ideas about what needs to be done when the country is to be rebuilt!

One of the most important areas for real influence is the processes that distribute money. What interventions should be made, and how? Which structures need to be built up in the country again, and how should the resources be distributed?

The majority within the government support highlights equality, but we experience a lack of focus on the decisive structures - perhaps because it is so self-evident for so many of us. But precisely because it is self-evident for people here in Sweden, it needs to be highlighted on the international arena.

A small part of this is the motion from us in Centerpartiet, namely that Sweden shall push to ensure that the World Bank and the IMF ensure women's meaningful participation in investment programs and infrastructure programs in the reconstruction of countries after conflict. Centerpartiet wishes to announce this to the government. I therefore wish to move for approval of our reservation 2.

While I am standing up here, I would like to take the opportunity to say that we from the Center Party agree that a focus and review of the multilateral core supports needs to be made. The investigations that have been carried out are good. Then, there may be differing opinions on what the focus should be on and, above all, what the process for changing Sweden's aid policy should look like, both generally and specifically regarding the multilateral supports. We believe, for example, that Sweden should be a strong voice for a better multilateral system. It is therefore not enough for Sweden to review its own support; Sweden also needs to push so that the overall multilateral support becomes effective.

The big problem, as we see it, is that the government is still deviating from the one percent goal at a time when the role of aid is more important than it has been in a long time and the needs are growing.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We stand in the midst of some of the greatest challenges the world has ever seen. Widespread poverty and famine still prevail. Equality is regressing. Oppression and conflicts are increasing. Russia's heinous invasion of Ukraine is what dominates now, but there are still many other places where people take up arms to achieve their political goals. This creates immense suffering, and we all have a responsibility to try to achieve peace.

The corona pandemic has had effects that are not yet fully foreseeable, but it is clear that development in certain areas has been set back by several decades. It is a great tragedy now that development must move forward, not backward. We are also in the midst of accelerating climate changes that will become increasingly evident and cause great human tragedies and economic costs in the future.

In a situation like this, we must gather our forces. In a time of great challenges, which shows more clearly than ever that the whole world is interconnected, we must cooperate to make the world better, to lift people out of poverty and conflict, and to achieve the goals in Agenda 2030.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the outcome report on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations. It gives us an excellent opportunity to also debate what the design of the Swedish cooperation with multinational organizations should look like. This is welcome because we are still waiting for the government's reform agenda. We hope that it will mean more good than bad for achieving the aid policy goals, but there is not much that indicates it will be so. The government has started by abandoning the one percent goal and reducing the payments. It has been said that the support to the UN and other large organizations shall be reduced. It is serious.

Sweden has a long and proud history regarding international development cooperation and has for a very long time also generously supported multinational organizations.

Civil society has a very important role, which I would like to talk more about at another occasion, but it is the large organizations that are the vital skeleton in international development cooperation. In order to reach out and also gain strength for the other efforts, the international organizations must be strong.

We can observe that, for example, various UN organizations are those that are present both before, during, and after crises. They are in the most vulnerable countries, for example Afghanistan, Myanmar, Yemen and many other countries with protracted conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! The Government says it wants to have efficiency. In that case, speed is often of decisive importance. We want measures to be able to be fast. We want the help to reach those who need it when they need it – not weeks or months later when the disaster has passed and relatives have long since been forced to bury their dead, who could have been saved if support could have been reallocated quickly and if those working in the organizations had had a room for maneuver.

We see the need time and again. Among the most recent major examples, we see the cyclone in Malawi, the floods in Pakistan, and the earthquakes in Turkey, Kurdistan, and Syria. Predictable core support and flexible financing make it possible to more effectively prevent and act in emergencies and crises across the world.

Through Sweden's way of acting and the work we do in Sweden, we have not only contributed to achieving the overall goal of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, but we have also, through financial support to projects and programs, created better living conditions for people in poverty and oppression, even in countries where Swedish bilateral aid does not reach. We in Sweden have also, through our strategic engagement, achieved impact for Swedish political priorities and thus even greater leverage for the aid funds.

Mr. Speaker! The report states that an uneasy world has direct effects on global security, safety, and welfare. The same applies to the effects of the climate crisis. Aid through multilateral organizations working for sustainable development, peaceful societies, human rights, equality, and democracy therefore becomes both a contribution to the jointly agreed Agenda 2030, which affects all countries, and an investment in Sweden's own development and future.

All of this is what the core funding to multilateral organizations has contributed to. It is, therefore, effective and purposeful. Nevertheless, one of the few real messages we receive regarding the future of aid is that the proportion of aid channeled through core funding to multilateral organizations shall be limited. This is to completely disregard how one reaches its own goals.

One writes oneself that the government's primary priorities within aid include support for Ukraine and the surrounding region, humanitarian aid, safeguarding democracy, human rights and the rule of law principles, equality and the rights of girls and women, expanding and streamlining climate aid, as well as promoting global health. Furthermore, one wants an increased focus on migration in aid as well as strengthening the synergies between development cooperation, export and investment promotion, and trade policy. Efficiency and results shall be at the center. In that case, it is still quite strange to pursue a policy that leads in a completely opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say a few words about the work on equality. Even though the government has now abandoned the practical aspect of calling things what they are, it is asserted with emphasis that although the policy should not be called feminist, it shall be. It is emphasized that equality and SRHR remain important priorities. That is very good. Women's rights are human rights, and everyone should have the same rights and the same opportunities in life.

But women are also important agents of change, and promoting a faster transition to equality will also help us reach the other goals. The government we entered had a strong focus on this, and I truly hope that the current government will have the same commitment and push for increased equality in all forums and in all decisions and constantly ask "Where are the women?" – whether it is about negotiations for peace and freedom or the right that all women should have to their own body. Power over one's own body is crucially important, but also having access to one's own economy and livelihood.

Despite the fact that equality is both a goal and a means, it is not everything. Sustainable global development has ecological, social and economic dimensions. All three must be respected. Functioning ecosystems are the basis for life and thus also for economy and social values.

Today, reality does not look like that. Large international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank look more at economic development than at both the social and ecological. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet want updated rules regarding loans to developing countries to strengthen governance towards sustainability from a climate, environmental, and social perspective.

Mr. Speaker! Cooperation between different countries and organizations is necessary to achieve sustainable development and reduced suffering in the world.

When we talk about development cooperation and humanitarian aid, we must also take into account the ecological limits of our planet. We cannot continue to work within a model where rich countries can consume more and more, while the poor suffer from climate change and lose their food resources. Instead, we need a system where we share resources in a fair way and work to strengthen local production and self-sufficiency.

Report on development cooperation and humanitarian aid through multilateral organizations

It is also important to acknowledge that there are differences in power and influence between different countries and organizations. The multilateral organizations play an important role in providing support to countries that have less influence on the global arena and to those who need it most.

I hope that Sweden will continue to be a strong voice in the world for multinational cooperation that leads us to the goals we ourselves have set and stand behind: to reduce poverty and oppression and to reach all goals in Agenda 2030. Only then can we build a better world together.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only of reservation number 4 in order to save the Chamber voting time.

Let me also apologize for exceeding my speaking time, but I have not exceeded more than what the government has cut from the aid.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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