Response to interpellation 2023/24:681 on support for civil society
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government wants to increase support for civil society and human rights 1. M argues that Sida should analyze a new model to increase transparency and efficiency 1 2. M wants the aid to be based on the best projects 3 and that organizations have a responsibility to find their own funding 3. M argues that the agreements are not being terminated today but are being notified to expire 3. V argues that the government is pulling the rug out from under established organizations 4 5. V argues that this creates uncertainty, wastes taxpayers' money and threatens important projects 4 5.
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 a number of questions concerning Swedish aid that goes to civil society organizations in Sweden and the support that goes to defenders of human rights and democracy in recipient countries.
Let me first agree with Lotta Johnsson Fornarve that in a world where the development of democracy is heading in the wrong direction, Swedish aid can play an important role. On that, we are in complete agreement. What we do not agree on seems to be two things: what Sweden does, and how the work to achieve better impact shall be conducted in the future.
The Government decided on 29 February to task Sida with analyzing and submitting proposals for an alternative model for the allocation of the aid that is currently mediated through the strategic partner organizations, the SPOs. The purpose of the assignment is to obtain a basis where the funds in the CSO strategy are fully or partially opened for applications to Sida from more aid organizations and not, as is currently the case, only the few civil society organizations that are strategic partner organizations. The assignment also includes producing a consequence analysis. The Government awaits the completed assignment and the proposals to be developed by Sida during the spring. The agreements are handled by the agency, and therefore I request to refer to Sida.
This is not a question of nationalizing aid and reducing the role of Swedish civil society or its added value in development cooperation.
The government has a clear ambition to increase support for civil society, including human rights and democracy defenders. This is reflected in the government's reform agenda. Furthermore, we have prioritized support for individual human rights defenders and independent journalists in the recently adopted strategy for Sweden's global development cooperation for human freedoms and rights, democracy and the principles of the rule of law. The government also added 40 million kronor to the CSO strategy this year for activities in Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Belarus and Georgia, which means that the CSO strategy's appropriation for 2024 has increased to 1.8 billion kronor.
To claim, as Fornarve does, that the government is prioritizing down civil society and the work with human freedoms and rights by cutting the money is therefore directly incorrect. Taken as a whole, Sweden is one of the countries in the world that gives the largest share of aid - 6.6 billion kronor during 2023, corresponding to 26 percent of Sida's total aid - to human rights, democracy and the principles of the rule of law. Of that support, just over 60 percent goes to civil society.
An increase in the own contribution naturally has consequences. However, the levels for the own contribution for Swedish organizations have varied over time. Civil society acts independently and autonomously and is an important actor in development cooperation. The independence of actors from the state is fundamental for a civil society with a breadth of ideas. The increased own contribution does not apply to local organizations in developing countries; for these, 0 percent in own contribution applies as before.
The Government has an ongoing dialogue with Swedish civil society organizations within Swedish humanitarian aid and development cooperation. During 2023 and 2024, the Government has continuously met with representatives from civil society. At the official level, UD and Sida also participate in regular meetings. Moving forward, we will, of course, continue to maintain a dialogue with the civil society organizations.
I would finally like to state that the government sees civil society as a completely crucial partner regarding knowledge, experience, and the implementation of Swedish aid.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation!
The Minister responds, among other things, that he wants to establish that the government views civil society as a completely crucial partner regarding knowledge, experience, and the implementation of Swedish aid. That is, of course, very good. But against that background, it becomes all the more strange that the government is now in the process of pulling the rug out from under a large number of civil society organizations operating within the aid sector. The organizations concerned are the so-called strategic partner organizations, the SPOs. These are 17 well-established organizations with an incredibly strong level of trust among the Swedish public - Rädda Barnen, Diakonia, Röda Korset, Kvinna till Kvinna, We Effect, Act Svenska kyrkan, RFSU, Union to Union and Afrikagrupperna, to name a few.
On 29 February, the government tasked Sida with investigating how the agency can take over the further distribution of support and replace the current system with strategic partner organizations with a new system to be launched on 1 January 2025. Sida therefore began to terminate agreements with strategic partner organizations, even though the agreements had not expired. This has created enormous concern both among the Swedish organizations and among the recipients of Swedish aid around the world. Many are asking what is now happening with Swedish aid.
A large number of contracts are being terminated despite not having expired. This concerns projects that have been planned to continue for several years. Much time, effort, and resources have been invested in the planning of these projects, a task that now risks slipping through the fingers and going to waste. One of the minister's favorite words is often efficiency, and it is a good word. But what is happening now is hardly an efficient way to use aid and tax funds.
Approximately 1,700 partners in 90 countries worldwide are affected when their funding is jeopardized. A long line of organizations worldwide that work for democracy, human rights, women's rights, trade union and religious rights, or climate and environment now face a very uncertain future.
Projects that are threatened are, for example, a project in one of the world's most dangerous countries, Honduras, which aims to support environmental and human rights defenders. To date, the project has saved the lives of 1,093 people. In Burkina Faso, an innovative project has been started by a partner to create alternative sources of income and retraining for the poor women who perform female genital mutilation on girls. This project would also be forced to cease. The list of threatened projects can be made very long; these were just a couple of examples.
It is irresponsible and a great waste of taxpayers' money when well-planned activities may not be allowed to continue. It is definitely not an efficient way to use aid funds. Why does Sida terminate well-functioning projects in ongoing contracts? Why do you not at least let the projects continue until the end of the contract period so that they can be concluded in a dignified manner? Why do you not listen to civil society organizations and the concern that exists among these?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for this interpellation.
Initially, I want to point out that no contracts or assignments in aid or to civil society organizations apply forever. They are time-limited, and that is nothing new. That is also how it has functioned under other governments, for example, the governments that Vänsterpartiet has supported. It is an established principle that we have time-limited strategies.
Sometimes it happens that these strategies expire. This applies to everyone. Then one has to initiate new strategies or make changes in the aid. It is a principle that has applied for several decades. It sounds to the interpellor as if this were to be a major systemic change in that part. But that is not the case. It has always worked exactly like that.
Now it concerns the CSO strategy. There, I want to give Lotta Johnsson Fornarve the point; we want to change Swedish aid. We have spoken a lot here in the chamber about finding synergies between aid and trade, a more modern form of aid. That is what many developing countries themselves are asking for. We are now making major changes to find those synergies.
But we also want to make the aid more effective. We want to make it more transparent and open. We want to open up the model with strategic partner organizations. There are many more today than just these 17 organizations. It would be quite excellent if we could find a model that means more organizations can receive a share of the aid directly from Sida without having to take a detour through further mediation in many stages, high administration costs, and so on. That is our ambition with this. I believe that it will be welcomed by many civil society organizations.
We also know that there are a lot of problems with this. Just the other day, it was reported that Sida's internal auditors had essentially raised the alarm linked to precisely these issues. The model does not work as it should, the transparency is too poor, the work against corruption in the recipient countries is lacking, and systems and routines that should be in place are not in place. Sometimes there is even problematic issues linked to sanctions.
It is very serious. It is not just about the trust in the aid policy in Sweden, but also fundamentally about that the funds we channel to aid shall reach people in the recipient countries in the best way possible.
I am pleased that the interpellator Lotta Johnsson Fornarve is so engaged in these issues. I would like to urge against being in too much of a hurry in this. We are still only at the beginning of the process. We have been very transparent and have made a detailed timetable. We have still only received one of three reports from Sida. We are waiting for the other two. When we have that material, we will take a position on the continuation.
But we cannot stand here today, before we have even had the chance to review the partial reports, and say: Now it is going to be this or it is going to be that. That would be to get ahead of events far too much.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! What is new in this is that Sida is terminating contracts that have not expired. It is not strange that one does not renew contracts that have expired, but these contracts have not expired. There are projects that have been planned for several years into the future. A lot of time, energy, resources, and money have been invested in this.
Organizations around the world have an expectation that this will continue, but now these agreements have been forced to be terminated. Organizations around the world are sitting and waiting and do not know what will happen. That is what is new. That is why the civil society organizations are deeply upset and concerned.
I invited all 17 civil society organizations that we are talking about here to a meeting. Everyone who came to the Riksdag was deeply concerned and upset about what is now happening. Therefore, I think it is obvious that the minister has not listened to the civil society organizations' concern and anxiety, nor to what these organizations are doing out in the world.
At the meeting, Save the Children said, among other things: Now that we have to cancel the entered agreement, what shall we say to the children with disabilities in Rwanda who have gone through a long process of preparations and who are proud of their agreement with Save the Children and have great expectations for the future?
What does the minister say to the democracy fighters in Cambodia who are now losing their support in a very sensitive situation? It is a support that the government's own state committee EBA has evaluated carefully and said is very well-functioning.
The government is also proposing that Sida should take over the support for popular movements. It is stated clearly and plainly in the instructions. If this were to become a reality, decades of knowledge and experience would be lost. At the same time, an agency can impossibly reach out to the local community in the way that civil society can through its partners. Many organizations in smaller democratic countries also cannot have direct contact with an agency.
The government has also signaled that it wants to open up for shorter contracts in the future, despite all research showing that long-term perspective is important for good and effective aid. A project should be at least five years to be effective. It is not possible to build up any sensible operation during, for example, one year. The government's slogans on transparency, efficiency, and long-term perspective ring increasingly false.
Furthermore, the government's new strategy for development work with civil society for 2024 entails an increased self-financing requirement. For small organizations, this means a doubling already this year or a tripling from next year onwards. Several of the smaller organizations, for example the Africa groups, will not be able to collect the funds needed.
Small civil society organizations may be forced to close down because of this new requirement. Their long-established and cultivated relationships, specific expertise, and unique opportunities to reach specific groups risk being completely lost. Is it only the big giants that will be able to apply for funding and run projects in the future? I think it is a worrying development.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Audience! I am pleased that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has met with aid organizations. I do not know which ones the interpellator has met or how many attended. But I would like to urge that next time, she meets not only those who already receive allocations from Sida but perhaps also some of those who do not and who see opportunities in a system with greater openness and transparency, where the aid can be shared with more organizations, not just those who receive it already today.
The whole purpose of our model is to find an allocation based on a greater degree of openness and precisely efficiency. It should be the best projects, those that achieve the best results, that receive aid funds. It should be the guiding star, rather than the projects that one has worked with for a long time. Sometimes, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, it can actually be good to think a bit differently, to not just do as one has always done and let things roll on according to old routine.
We shall use aid as a strategic resource, measure results and channel funds to that which can actually combat poverty most effectively or facilitate for human rights defenders. It is precisely that perspective we want to introduce and which meets strong opposition from Vänsterpartiet.
I want to repeat something that I have said all the time: We have been transparent in the process and have provided a detailed timeline for this. I want to point out that the agreements are not being terminated today, as it sounds like in this debate. It is a notification that they are to expire at the turn of the year. We are still only in May. The basis for this is to give the organizations a notification of how we intend to proceed, so that it does not come as a surprise at the end of the year.
When it comes to the work of developing the new system, the new resource allocation, I want to emphasize that we are a government that believes very much in civil society, to such an extent that we are increasing the support to CSO. It has increased with this government compared to the previous government, which governed with the support of Vänsterpartiet. That says something about how important this is for us.
We will, as said, return. But it is important that all of us who think that this is a central part of the aid do not spread inaccuracies, that we do not create unnecessary concern but actually await the additional reports that are to come from Sida.
On that theme, I just want to repeat the problem picture that we see and that Sida's own internal auditors have pointed out. It concerns problems linked to transparency, corruption, and conflicts of interest. Doesn't the Left Party see this? Doesn't the Left Party think that those types of serious issues are a problem, that Swedish tax money is even mentioned in the same context as corruption? Doesn't the Left Party think it is good that we act to change it?
Ultimately, this is about trust in the aid policy, but first and foremost about ensuring that the resources we allocate to aid – 56 billion kronor, which have been worked for by nurses, teachers, and police officers – are always used as effectively as possible. Does the Left Party not see the problems that exist today?
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Of course, the aid must work well, and if there are problems, they must be addressed. But few things over the years have been as thoroughly scrutinized and transparent as just the aid.
The Swedish people have very great confidence in civil society's aid work. This is shown by Sida's annual opinion poll. There is also a reason why it is precisely these 17 organizations that receive grants from Sida. They are the most well-established organizations we have in the country and they have existed for a long time, some for 60 years.
I am, of course, open to the fact that changes can be implemented; that is not it. But one terminates entered agreements that were intended to run for several years ahead and pulls the rug out from under projects for which a lot of time, energy, resources, and planning have been invested to carry out. They now risk slipping through our fingers. It is a fact that it is that way, and I mean that it is an enormous waste of tax money and aid funds. It is approximately 1,700 partners in 90 countries worldwide who are affected. A long row of organizations working for democracy, human rights, women's rights, trade union and religious rights, climate and environment now face a very uncertain future.
Swedish aid still has a good reputation around the world, but now the government risks shattering it and significantly reducing confidence in it. When that happens, the image of Sweden is worsened, and it is an image that we should instead be strengthening.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! We are a bourgeois government that believes in the power of civil society, and that is why we are increasing the resources for civil society support. But Lotta Johnsson Fornarve puts her finger on something interesting, I think. It is clear that civil society is something other than the state. One can hear from the name that it is not a purely state executor.
This raises an interesting question, namely what responsibility one has as a civil society organization to find other funding than from taxpayers. If one has an organization that is 90-95 percent dependent on tax money, it is well a problem if one simultaneously says that one is a civil society organization. It is almost a philosophical question. It is clear that a civil society organization has a responsibility to collect its own funding. We also believe that, fundamentally, it makes the aid better.
I am convinced that the Swedish people want to be generous and want to be involved and contribute. No one is unaffected by the horrors of war that one sees. But as a civil society organization - or for that matter as a state operator - one must always be able to demonstrate good results, transparency, and efficiency. When we have problems confirmed, such as in this internal audit report, we must not sweep them under the rug and continue as we have always done. We must address the problems, open up the systems, increase transparency, find routines to combat corruption or suspected conflict of interest issues etcetera - and that is precisely what we are doing now.
We are only at the beginning of this change. We will await Sida's further reports and analyses, and then we will provide an update on the continuation. But it is already clear that civil society will also continue to be very important aid actors.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.