Response to interpellation 2022/23:169 on dialogue and information support in aid
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that Swedish aid does more good abroad than through information initiatives in Sweden and that the money is used more effectively in recipient countries 1. 2 M argues that the government has an ongoing dialogue with civil society and intends to increase the proportion of aid via civil society where it is effective 2. 3 M considers it more important that tax money goes towards helping people in need and climate transition than towards information initiatives 3. 4 M wants each actor to clearly demonstrate themselves how they have managed the taxpayers' money 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me why I have not consulted civil society's aid actors before the changes to the aid. Furthermore, she asks if I intend to increase the dialogue with civil society and, if so, in what way. Johnsson Fornarve asks if I and the government have conducted any impact assessment of how the reduced information support will affect Swedish aid in the longer term. Finally, she also asks in what way I will work to ensure that the reorganization of the aid that the government presented in the budget bill for 2023 takes place as transparently as possible.
Civil society organizations in Sweden are a valuable partner to the government, partly as a dialogue partner, and partly and especially as a cooperation partner within aid, which is largely channeled through Swedish civil society organizations. One of civil society's strengths is that they often have a strong local anchoring. Among other things, the government therefore intends to increase the proportion of aid channeled via civil society in places where civil society effectively carries out prioritized activities. This can involve both Swedish organizations and civil society organizations in other countries.
Part of the aid to Swedish civil society organizations is managed through the strategy for support through Swedish organizations in civil society, which has been extended without change in the amount compared to the previous year. Furthermore, civil society can be implementers of aid interventions financed by other parts of the aid budget.
It is fundamentally important to maintain a dialogue with civil society ahead of changes in aid that affect them. The Government has an ongoing dialogue with organizations in civil society and intends to continue to maintain a regular dialogue on these issues. The Government understands that the reduction within the strategy for information and communication affects organizations in civil society but considers that Swedish aid should be used to a greater extent to finance interventions outside Sweden's borders. It is therefore important to be able to prioritize and that activities have a breadth in their funding for reduced vulnerability.
Sweden and the world face great global challenges in these times of crisis, and we must direct our attention to the serious global situation. Accordingly, we are reviewing the direction of Swedish aid, and the primary focus for Swedish development policy is to provide as much support as possible to Ukraine's government and population in their struggle for democracy and sovereignty, as well as in the extensive reconstruction work that awaits. The support is ultimately about defending democracy and a rules-based world order.
The Government has proposed to the Riksdag a fixed aid budget for 2023-2025 of 56 billion per year. In addition, a maximum ceiling for migration deductions of 8 percent is decided. Thus, we have created a rock-solid predictability in the aid for these years. At the same time, we are increasing the ambition to make Swedish aid more long-term, effective, and transparent.
The government also redirects the aid based on the following priorities: Ukraine, humanitarian support, poverty reduction and health interventions for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, support for democracy fighters, expanded and focused climate aid, as well as support for women's and girls' rights and opportunities. With an aid budget of 56 billion kronor, Sweden will continue to be one of the world's most generous donors.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation, even though I do not feel particularly satisfied with it.
In response to my interpellation, the Minister says that the government has an ongoing dialogue with civil society organizations and intends to continue to do so. But during the autumn and winter, I have met a long line of representatives for civil society aid organizations and none of them have been particularly satisfied. They have rather been critical of the lack of information and communication regarding the changes to the aid. In fact, an information meeting was not held until January, several weeks after the regulatory letter was presented and the cuts were already a fact.
The Minister also says in the response that the government understands that the reduction within the strategy for information and communication affects organizations in civil society but considers that Swedish aid should be used to a greater extent to finance interventions outside Sweden's borders. I think this indicates poor knowledge of how information aid is used.
The information support has a broad area of application and is used to review, inform, and contribute to the debate on aid, which is absolutely crucial for ensuring the quality of the aid and, not least, the transparency.
As examples of what the money was used for during 2022, one can mention the newspaper Sveriges Naturs review of how union representatives are murdered in the Swedish Vattenfall's hunt for cheap coal in Colombia, the newspaper Arbetets revelation that AP funds buy government bonds in dictatorships, and the monitoring of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Does the Minister not consider it important that such information comes to light and becomes known?
The information support has by no means only been used to arrange conferences. It has, for example, also been used to contribute to peace and development. One example is the organization Operation 1325, which conducts development cooperation with organizations in, among others, Yemen for women's inclusion in peace processes. Another example is the Swedish MR-fund, which has contributed to the peace process in Colombia.
The information support has thus contributed to securing peace and saving lives. The support has also been used to invite human rights activists from different parts of the world who can provide information about the situation in their own country. It is information that perhaps otherwise would never have become known. It can involve women's rights activists from South America who have been able to travel to Europe and speak with, among others, Swedish authorities.
The very large cuts that are now occurring, from 155 million to 20 million, undermine civil society's ability to inform about, scrutinize, and disseminate knowledge about Swedish aid, something that in the long run risks contributing to a reduced support for international aid among the Swedish public. The important work that many aid organizations have built up over a very long time risks being torn down and interrupted. I do not think that is an effective way to use the aid.
What consequence analysis has the government actually conducted of the drastic cuts to information support that are now taking place? I do not think I have received a very good answer to the question. Why has the minister not consulted the aid organizations in a better way before making these dramatic changes?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the interpellation. There are many claims made in the interpellation, but they are perhaps not always quite backed up by facts, I would say. I also want to remember that I have been in this chamber before and told, for example, about how we had meetings with civil society organizations. I am happy to do so once again.
I hope that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve is aware that this government has acted in exactly the same way as the previous government in the information to civil society. After we took office, we had a large meeting at the beginning of January with very many civil society organizations. Lotta Johnsson Fornarve was not there, but I was, and I can report that it was a good meeting. Not everyone always needs to agree with each other, but there was plenty of time for discussion. I believe, for example, that we went on for 30 minutes longer than what was planned. It was not the endpoint but the starting point for the information. We have a secretary-general network that met beforehand. Since then, the department has had ongoing dialogue with various actors within the CSO world. We have the common commitments, where there have also been meetings; representatives from UD meet people on an ongoing basis.
It is possible that the interpellator is not aware of all this, but I am grateful that I received this opportunity today to once again account for the many meetings that have taken place. This was also exactly how the previous government acted, and I want to remember that Vänsterpartiet was part of that government's parliamentary basis.
Fundamentally, there are different views that stand against each other here. The Government's view is that Swedish aid does more good abroad than in Sweden. The information notice that the interpellor refers to has grown from 5 million kronor in 2011 to 160 million kronor. When one listens to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, one can get the impression that the money has disappeared. That is not the case, but fundamentally we make the assessment that the money is used more effectively elsewhere. I can give an example: in Ukraine, where we are now investing very much in helping people in a very difficult situation. It is also the case that we are expanding the humanitarian aid to people who are in a situation where they have difficulty getting by for the day. A current example of this naturally concerns Turkey and Syria.
The assessment we make is that this amount of money, 160 million kronor of the taxpayers' resources, is used more effectively "out there" than by arranging various information initiatives in Sweden. It does not mean that every such initiative needs to be incorrect or unimportant. But our assessment is that the benefit of the aid money specifically is significantly greater if it is used in the recipient countries than if it—besides the things that have been mentioned—finances, for example, newspaper subsidies, presence in Almedalen or at the book fair and so on.
I also want to point out that 20 million kronor of this appropriation still remains. That is a lot of money. I also want to remind once again that the corresponding appropriation in 2011 amounted to 5 million kronor.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the supplementary answer. I do not doubt for a second that the meeting held in January was good. The problem is, however, that the meeting took place after the changes in the aid had occurred. The cuts were already a fact. It is perfectly clear that the aid organizations are dissatisfied. I can truly sign off on this after having met a long line of aid organizations. It concerns the lack of communication and information. I truly hope that this will be better in the future.
The Minister says that Sweden and the world face major global challenges and that as much support as possible should be given to Ukraine. I truly agree with the importance of providing support to Ukraine in the difficult situation it finds itself in with war. But it must not occur at the expense of poor, vulnerable people in other parts of the world. In the long run, we must find additional funds for support for Ukraine's reconstruction that do not burden the current aid. It is very difficult to understand how the government, in the serious situation the world is currently in, chooses to cut aid and abandon the one percent goal. Now that the world looks the way it does, one should instead at least maintain the aid at the previous level and stick to the one percent goal.
The government is changing the aid without having conducted any deeper analysis of what it will entail, as I understand it. You are cutting back on the support to the UN and the core support. You are to have a focus towards trade and Swedish business as well as migration. But the government has previously stated that civil society organizations shall be given a larger role. I am therefore surprised when the regulatory letter arrives and it turns out that all grants to civil society are decreasing, in some cases drastically.
The information activities, which we are now discussing, are particularly hard hit. It is being reduced from 155 to 20 million. It is therefore an enormous reduction, which hits the aid organizations very hard. That it has increased so much previously is due to the fact that there has been a great need for this increase. Many people in our country have a positive view of aid and would like to contribute themselves. In that case, it is important that people receive knowledge on how the aid is used and that it goes to the right things.
In practice, the cut in information support means a direct decommissioning of a long series of information channels, which in turn reduces the transparency and quality of Swedish aid. One example is that Forum Civ's digital platform Globalportalen is threatened with closure. Forum Civ is Sweden's largest platform for civil society. Another example is the internship program that FUF, Föreningen för Utvecklingsfrågor, has for students who are interested in working with global development issues. Furthermore, I can mention the Utrikespolitiska Förbundet's seminars on global foreign policy issues at universities all over Sweden, as well as the organization World's Children's Prize Foundation, which through its school project has reached more than 692,000 pupils in Sweden and engaged them for children's rights in the world. All of this is financed by information support and is now at risk of being shut down. These are just a few concrete examples. The list could be very long.
I still do not think I have received any real analysis of why the government is making these large cuts and how they will affect aid in the long term. In what way will the Minister work to ensure that the reallocation of aid that the government presents in the budget bill for 2023 takes place as transparently as possible? When will the reform agenda for aid actually be presented? Is there a clear timetable? How will the anchoring take place?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the analysis of why we are doing this, I can only repeat that the purpose is to respond to the government's prioritization. The government assumes that Swedish aid does significantly more good in recipient countries than it does in Sweden. We help significantly more people in need if we use the money abroad than if we spend 160 million kronor on an information strategy in Sweden. This is the only strategy in that part that is directed specifically at Sweden. I also want to point out that there are still 20 million kronor remaining. That is a lot of money.
The reallocation of this is fundamentally managed through a budget process. We have followed the parliamentary procedure and included exactly the information we believe is required for us to be comfortable making this decision. I want to say again that the money does not disappear but is moved to other purposes, for example, support for Ukraine or an increase in humanitarian support. I also think that is important.
When it comes to the CSOs, I want to remind that the amount for the CSO strategy remains at exactly the same level as last year. Given the proportion of the total aid policy, the CSOs are increasing. This is, of course, only the beginning, but it is not correct that the strategy should have received less money. That is not the case. On the other hand, the money for just information efforts has decreased because we, once again, are of the opinion that the money does significantly greater good in, for example, Ukraine. It is a prioritization that I am happy to defend every day.
I also want to point out a few other things. We are making several changes in this year's budget, including an important initiative that we call the democracy billion. I also want to take this opportunity to confirm that we see the important work that many CSOs carry out, often very close to people in conflict situations. They often have a very strong local anchoring, and many people in the CSO world make very important contributions. I believe for sure that some of the projects that are often mentioned in this discussion will be able to fit within the framework of the democracy billion, which, as you hear, is significantly more than the 160 million that have gone to information efforts in Sweden.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve says that the Swedes' will to stand up for a generous aid policy might deteriorate if we spend less tax money on information about aid. I believe that one can look at this in different ways. One can, for example, consider to what extent taxpayers' money should actually be spent on leading the public toward one opinion or the other. Is it really an effective use of tax money? Is it fundamentally right?
I believe rather – and it is even more important – that if the money they have paid in tax actually goes to what it is intended for, that is to say to helping people in need, to ensuring that people can lift themselves out of poverty and to ensuring that we can increase the pace of the green climate transition – that is, exactly what aid should go towards – instead of for information campaigns in Sweden, then I believe that more citizens will feel that their money is actually being used in an effective way. Then it feels good, and thus one can also imagine contributing more.
If, on the other hand, one perceives that this is an area characterized by low efficiency and a lack of transparency, I believe the opposite will occur. We can also see that support for the aid policy last year actually decreased slightly. Transparency really needs to increase.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the further answer, Minister!
I do not think the minister has truly understood the importance of the information support and its scope. The information support is used precisely to increase knowledge about the needs of vulnerable people for support and help in the world. It is often far away, so these funds are needed to spread knowledge and also to review how the aid has been used. The minister says that transparency is important, and part of the information support is used precisely to review the aid and in that way increase transparency.
The important work that many aid organizations have built up over a long period is now at risk of being dismantled and interrupted, and I truly do not think that is an effective way to use the aid. In practice, the dramatic cut in information support means a direct decommissioning of a long series of information channels, which in turn reduces the transparency and quality of Swedish aid. With a reduced information support, the possibility to scrutinize what Swedish aid money is used for also becomes smaller, and the possibility for a broad and popular debate on aid is curtailed. This is also incredibly important.
Does the Minister not agree that it is important that the Swedish people receive good knowledge about how aid money is used?
Does the Minister not agree that it is important to review the aid and the actions of Swedish authorities and companies in the world?
Does the Minister not agree that it is important that children and young people receive good knowledge about the world we live in?
Does the Minister not agree that it is important that we in Sweden have a living debate on development issues and aid?
Finally, I want to urge the Minister to reconsider regarding the information support. It is needed, and it is important to guarantee the transparency and quality of the aid, to audit what Swedish aid money is used for, for good knowledge of aid issues, and for a broad and popular debate on aid.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! As I have pointed out, it is the government's full conviction that these funds do significantly more good in the recipient countries – for example, in Ukraine, to those affected in Turkey and Syria, or to the great needs we see on the Horn of Africa – than 155 million kronor for information efforts in Sweden can do.
We must ask ourselves where the money does the most good. We must dare to prioritize. From Vänsterpartiet, it sometimes sounds as if it is the quantity that is what is important. For the government, it is the quality, and then one must prioritize. In a situation where everything is prioritized, nothing is prioritized. Every day, I will stand up for the principle that aid does more good out there among people in distress compared to spending such an incredible amount of money here at home. It is an incredible increase that we have seen; it has, therefore, grown from 5 million to almost 160 million kronor in a little more than ten years.
When it comes to scrutiny and debate, it would be sad if we equated this with tax financing. I would rather say that the discussion and the debate we have had over the past few months show that it works perfectly well to have a debate on these issues, and I welcome that debate. I would, however, like to point out that the 20 million kronor that also remain in this information strategy - which in itself is a lot of money - shall focus on precisely critical scrutiny. I think that is very important.
We will return with proposals to specifically produce this reform agenda. An important part of that will be precisely the transparency. There, it is also important that every actor, and perhaps that is the most important in this context, can clearly show for themselves how they have managed the taxpayers' money, what results they have achieved, and what they have used the funds for. I believe that is very important both to ensure that the tax money always goes to the right things and ultimately to also ensure that there is a popular anchoring when it comes to the aid policy in general.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.