Response to interpellation 2022/23:69 on truly effective aid

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! She has asked me how Sweden and I, as Minister, intend to take advantage of the opportunities that the presidency entails for the international process regarding aid effectiveness. She has also asked how the government intends to continue working with the international principles for aid effectiveness and ensure that Swedish aid continues to be based on these.

Sweden and the world face great trials. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has political, economic and humanitarian consequences that spread far beyond Ukraine. Countries with widespread and long-lasting poverty are often characterized by a lack of democracy, weakly developed market economies, poor governance, corruption, dependence on external support and a lack of equality - not infrequently in combination with conflict. The global challenges are further exacerbated by climate change, the depletion of biodiversity and environmental degradation. A historically large number of people are in flight.

We need to view Swedish aid as a strategic resource that must be used effectively and in the right way. Swedish aid does not operate in isolation from others, and it is therefore crucial that we cooperate effectively to achieve results. This applies to both other donors and other actors who contribute to sustainable development. It also applies to recipients of aid, and we shall therefore have an open and constructive dialogue with, for example, the recipient countries' governments.

I am pleased that Sweden, in connection with the high-level meeting in Geneva, will become co-chair of the global partnership for effective development cooperation, which brings together a wide range of actors. Sweden has a long tradition of being proactive in the international work for aid effectiveness. It is a commitment that has extended across several different governments.

The government will work internationally for effective aid and take into account the principles for effective development cooperation. International aid has undergone major changes in recent decades and has become increasingly complex. New types of actors and forms of cooperation have emerged to solve not only new problems but also old problems in new ways. Cooperation based on common principles is required here to continue improving the impact of aid for the most vulnerable.

In the international work for more effective aid, the government will, among other things, promote transparency, result focus, and increased mobilization of private capital. Aid effectiveness needs to be understood to a greater extent in the context of the broader development financing agenda, where aid constitutes a part and interacts with other financial flows that contribute to sustainable development.

To ensure high-quality Swedish aid, the government will develop a reform agenda with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. The needs are great and the resources are limited. Therefore, the government, in cooperation with like-minded parties, will focus on streamlining and synergies between interventions. The principles for effective development cooperation will also continue to be significant for the development and implementation of Swedish aid.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation! I completely agree with the Minister on the importance of having aid that is as effective as possible and the importance of cooperation between different actors.

But I must also say that I am concerned about the change of course that I can nevertheless see in Swedish aid, where the government announces that aid is to be linked to trade and business to a greater extent. It does not have to be negative, but I see obvious risks with the aid becoming more tied to Swedish interests.

I am also deeply concerned about the sharp cut in aid and the decision to deviate from the one percent target. This is happening at a time when the needs are greater than ever – something the Minister also refers to. 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, which means that 9.3 percent of the entire world's population lives in poverty. That is almost one in ten people.

A hunger catastrophe is currently taking place in the world. According to the UN, 345 million people suffer from acute malnutrition - a figure that has more than doubled since 2019. The causes are a series of overlapping global crises. It is the climate crisis, the corona epidemic, war and conflicts. In this situation, aid needs to be increased and not decreased, as Sweden now wants to do. I think it is quite shameful.

This also means that countries in the EU that in recent years have increased their aid with reference to Sweden can no longer see Sweden as an example. I am deeply concerned about what it means in the long run that Sweden is now abandoning the economic commitment of 1 percent. It also means that all recipients of Swedish aid will experience greater unpredictability. Predictability is a cornerstone for the quality and effectiveness of aid.

The decision to abandon the one percent goal does not seem to have been analyzed or investigated at all – something that, for example, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, EBA, points out.

The Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade emphasizes that the government wants to focus on quality, results, and efficiency. I agree that this is good. But what then is effective aid? I still do not think I am getting any really clear answer to that.

The government is now talking about that aid should be based on Swedish interests in order to achieve migration policy goals and to benefit Swedish exports. It is a way of using aid that is both outmoded, costly, and inefficient. According to the OECD, aid that is tied to requirements to trade with companies in donor countries is 15-30 percent more expensive. Therefore, the OECD has decided to phase out tied aid. Tying aid to export promotion risks making the aid less effective. Actual needs in the partner countries are ignored, and in many cases, trade is a way for a ruling elite to maintain power.

When Sweden does not base its actions on local needs, we violate international agreements on aid effectiveness – agreements that Sweden, together with recipient countries, donors, international organizations, the World Bank, the business sector, and researchers have evaluated over decades.

Does the Minister not agree that aid must be long-term and based on the recipients' needs and priorities? Can the Minister explain why Sweden is now cutting back on aid and abandoning the one percent goal at a time when the need for aid is gigantic?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to aid, we have, between the three government parties and the Sweden Democrats, agreed on a long-term plan. This means that the aid framework for the next three years shall be 56 billion kronor per year. It is a very generous aid policy. It actually means more money in total than the previous three-year period. This may be worth keeping in mind.

But it is true that we will change the aid policy. We will initiate a historic reform. Instead of as before, when the priority was how much money should be paid out, we will prioritize efficiency and quality and making a real difference. Sometimes the debate becomes very strange, as if it is only about how much money one pays out - and then the job would be done. The Government has significantly higher ambitions for aid than that.

An important such prioritization is the fact that aid is not just about fighting poverty. It is also about providing a path to prosperity. There, one can observe that many of the countries that Sweden has had development cooperation with for a long time and which have received very large amounts of money nonetheless, sometimes after several decades, are very dependent on aid.

There is, according to the government, room for changes and improvements here. One such prioritized area is the fact that aid and trade do not stand against each other but are different sides of the same coin. The path to prosperity can therefore not be built solely of money, but it is about trade, growth, market economy, the rule of law and democracy - a long series of different things that must be present. There are several international examples of this.

We will now initiate a reform of aid linked to the new direction, and we will present a reform agenda with a focus on precisely long-term perspective, transparency and efficiency, with thematic priorities. One such priority is the focus on poverty reduction, but also health interventions for the most vulnerable people in the world and, of course, democracy aid to human rights defenders with several.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is also the case that as a generous donor, one has a responsibility. One has a responsibility, not least towards Swedish taxpayers, to be able to set clear demands on our partners within development cooperation. Such a demand is linked to migration, which is mentioned in the interpellation posed to me. For migration to function, it is actually required that all states live up to the international law obligation to repatriate their citizens.

That the government weighs these types of migration policy factors in the choice of recipients of Swedish aid is not in conflict with an implementation in line with the principles for effective development cooperation, but every donor, Madam Speaker, has the right to choose with whom, where and how to initiate a development cooperation. This has always been the case in Swedish aid policy. We have never given everything to everyone but have always followed different priorities. This government will continue to do so. Migration is one such priority, but there are naturally also others.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says that Sweden still has generous aid, but we cannot ignore that we will be lowering the aid and that we are abandoning the important one percent goal that has stood as a pioneer for many other countries. It is to send the wrong signals at a time when aid needs to be increased, not lowered.

Madam Speaker! I do not hear the Minister for Development stating that the goals of development aid should actually be based on the recipient's needs and perspectives, which is fundamental for development aid. GPEDC is the global framework we have for a joint effort on aid effectiveness, where the four principles imply local ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, transparency, and joint accountability. The principles are built on decades of experience of what constitutes effective aid. Will Sweden depart from these important principles?

We also know that long-term development aid is effective. Development aid is smart for preventing crises and conflicts. It is therefore worrying that the government now says it wants to prioritize humanitarian aid. That is also important, but long-term aid is the most effective. We have seen many examples of this. To take one example, Argentina now has a law that allows women the right to their own bodies and the right to have an abortion. This is something that probably would never have happened without strong support for women's organizations in Argentina.

Sweden has a long history of supporting people's movements in partner countries. The democratic space is now shrinking in the world. Equality has regressed during the pandemic. Women have lost their jobs to a greater extent. Violence against women has increased. And more women have fallen into poverty.

In the government statement, the government promised to continue to prioritize "democracy assistance to human rights defenders and democracy activists, expanded and streamlined climate aid, as well as the rights and opportunities of women and girls." Will the government keep the promise to prioritize support to women's rights organizations and democracy activists in, for example, Guatemala and Cambodia?

Reducing support to the UN and cutting 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 such as those in, for example, Ukraine and Afghanistan. The UN also plays an important coordinating role between different actors in the world. A large part of the funds channeled through the UN also go to support women and SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. Strong core funding is not in contradiction to strong support for civil society. On the contrary, they are a prerequisite for one another.

It is sometimes incorrectly spoken of aid as a black hole. Sweden today has a relatively good aid system that is both transparent and effective and which is seen as a role model globally. At the same time, there is almost no focus on capital and tax flight as a black hole that robs countries of hundreds of billions of dollars every year in lost tax revenues. Here, decisive action needs to be taken. We also need to introduce effective country-by-country reporting for multinational companies.

Will the aid be based on the recipients' rights and needs? I want a clarification on that.

Will the government take action against capital and tax flight, and will the government stand up for ensuring that long-term, preventive support for women and human rights defenders is not cut?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! First, what is correct in what Lotta Johnsson Fornarve describes: We will be leaving the one percent goal. It is clearly expressed in the budget. What constitutes a long-term sustainable framework for aid policy, people may have different opinions on. It is clear that the needs in the world are endless. But if the aspect of also safeguarding Swedish taxpayers' money and achieving quality and efficiency is not counted, if it is only about spending as much money as possible on aid, why then not spend 2, 3 or 4 percent? It would have been interesting to hear the Left Party's view on that.

But for this government, the ambition is somewhat different than just spending as much money as possible. We are more interested in what results and what quality and efficiency we achieve. I believe that even the Left Party can agree that the results have historically been too poor. How else can one explain the fact that very many of the countries that for a very long time have received very large sums of money in Swedish aid are still dependent on it?

Obviously there is something here that is not quite working as it should. There is at least one space to dare to think anew, and that is what this government is doing.

One such area is to combine aid and trade, to move away from the silo thinking that has been a hindrance and realize that the path to prosperity is about exactly what I was touching upon: trade, doing business, growth, and market economy. During the visits I have made so far, there are very few times when pure aid requests come up. What is wanted is precisely investments in one's home country, because that is how you create long-term growth. That is how you break the poverty and do not become dependent on annual supplements from countries like Sweden. And that is this government's ambition.

We do not, therefore, have a lower ambition. On the contrary – we have a higher ambition. It is precisely for that reason that we will also change the aid in accordance with that.

When it comes to the four principles, the government will, as stated in my answer, continue to consider them, and we will also return with the priorities linked to our regulatory letters going forward. But I also want to point out that these principles are overlapping, and there are also other principles, for example the OECD-DAC framework, to take into account.

There is also, Madam Speaker, again the fact that every country that provides aid has the right to decide for itself which countries it wants to cooperate with. That is how it has always been. That was also the case for the previous government and for the government before that, which the Left Party has acted as support for and has voted for in budget decisions. Sweden thus has fully legitimate possibilities to decide for itself and set up which principles it wants should govern the aid. I have been into migration, which is such an example, but it can also be about anti-corruption work. We will in our regulatory letters return more to the details in this – we have only been in government for about eight weeks.

But I want to emphasize once again that we will carry out a change of the aid, and it is because the results have not been good enough. It does not negate what has been good and what has had an effect.

I can, for example, refer to what the National Audit Office and the Swedish National Audit Office have pointed out. One encounters different descriptions of the potential for improvement that exists, not least when speaking with many aid countries. They want trade, investments, and growth, and this is something we in the new government will, to the best of our ability, try to help them with.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says that the size of the aid perhaps does not play such a large role. But I think it is important how much money one gives in aid. It is clear that it has an effect if we cut back on aid at a time when aid is needed more than ever and we face both a famine catastrophe and an increasing number of people living in poverty.

I agree that aid should be effective, but effective and good aid must, of course, be based on the recipients' needs and perspectives. That is where I still feel I am not getting an answer. Will Swedish aid be based on the recipients' needs and perspectives and not primarily on Swedish interests and what benefits Swedish business?

The four principles for aid are established in the global framework GPEDC. It is good that the Minister says that one wants to stand by them. I truly hope that is the case. In a situation where democracy and equality are receding, it is extremely important that the government stands up for ensuring that long-term preventive support to women and human rights defenders is not cut.

There is no contradiction between strong core funding and support for civil society. The pandemic has shown that the UN system's ability to adapt due to the crisis has been very dependent on core funding. In these types of crises, resources and capacity were needed that could be quickly redirected. The core funding has contributed to different UN agencies being able to be on the ground quickly.

Ukraine obviously needs strong support from the rest of the world to rebuild the country. But the needs are gigantic. It is estimated to cost around 600-700 billion dollars, while the world's total aid amounts to 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.

Effective aid is important, but if we are to be able to eradicate poverty and move away from aid dependency, we must stop the outflow of capital from developing countries. The tax evasion of multinational corporations drains developing countries of hundreds of billions per year.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! What I am saying is not that the amount one allocates to aid would not be important. It is clear that it is central. What I am saying is that it is not the only thing that is important.

I think that in this context, one can also point out the fact that there are only five states in the entire world that reach the UN goal of 0.7 percent. Sweden will, of course, continue to be one of them. Sweden will continue to be a very generous aid donor.

There are more things that matter. The results, the transparency and the quality are things that we in the new government want to highlight together with what we have pointed out regarding the link between trade and aid.

The UN does many good things, but sometimes it appears in the debate as if it is only the UN acting as an aid actor. That is not the case. If we take a current example mentioned by Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, namely Ukraine, which will be a very clear priority for this new government, we can see that the EU is a very large actor. I think we sometimes need to see the aid work in a slightly broader perspective than it just being about the UN, because that is not how reality actually looks.

Support for women and girls is highlighted in the government statement as a priority area. We will return in the regulatory letters in the near future regarding the exact resource allocation. I do not want to anticipate this right now, but it will come in the near future.

Then I think there is a somewhat dull starting point in this debate: that there can only be one winner on aid and that one can only do it in one way. It is clear that the entire basis for providing aid is to help recipient countries. Otherwise, one wouldn't spend 56 billion on this area. But I live in the belief that more can become winners by linking trade and aid, for example our fantastic Swedish companies, which are far ahead in the green climate transition or when it comes to infrastructure. This requires new thinking, and this government will provide that.

I thank the interpellor for an interesting discussion.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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