Response to interpellation 2023/24:746 on transparency and efficiency in aid channeled through the Export Council

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of whether aid becomes more effective than today if the efforts going through Exportrådet are no longer to be measured against the aid's goals, and if I can in that case account for the results. He has also asked in what way transparency increases and how it follows the principle of public access when business confidentiality is to prevail.

I want to start already with the preamble preceding both questions and want to particularly emphasize there that it is a misunderstanding that the aid-funded assignments to Business Sweden, Sweden's export and investment council, would not be reported against the aid's goals or would be exempted from the usual transparency rules for the aid. On the contrary, the assignment to Business Sweden is accompanied by the same high requirements for transparency and efficiency as apply to other parts of the aid framework, which otherwise amounts to a total of 56 billion kronor this year.

I also want to emphasize that the mandate to Business Sweden is an important part of the government's new direction for development cooperation in order to strengthen synergies with the promotion and trade policy. The government thus wants to strengthen Sweden's collective contribution to achieving the global goals for sustainable development in Agenda 2030 and the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. It is about the government deciding, for the 2024 budget year, to channel 65 million kronor - a very small part of the total Swedish aid appropriation - via Business Sweden to help Swedish companies contribute to the aid's goals and to the green and digital transition in low- and middle-income countries.

In the letter of instruction, the government has set requirements that Business Sweden shall be open and transparent regarding the activities conducted with aid funds. This shall, among other things, occur through reporting in the statistics database Openaid and statistical reporting to the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, DAC.

The government's requirement for reporting on the implementation of the assignment and results against the aid objectives is also stated in the guideline letter to Business Sweden, which was decided by the government on 22 February 2024. It is stated there that the reporting to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs no later than 1 March 2025 shall include an account of how funds from expenditure area 7 have been used, as well as how these efforts have contributed to achieving the goals of Swedish development cooperation, namely to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty, as well as to the global development goals and the goals in the Paris Agreement.

It is also stated that the reporting shall show which sub-targets in Agenda 2030 have been achieved as well as generally indicate the efforts' contribution to increased Swedish project exports to the low- and middle-income countries' green and digital transition as well as its contribution to global climate benefit.

In summary, there is no doubt: Swedish aid shall be characterized by transparency and efficiency. The initiatives via Business Sweden shall be measured against the aid's goals, and the government has conditioned the allocation of funds with requirements for openness and transparency. Swedish taxpayers have a right to insight and shall be able to be assured that the tax funds allocated to the aid are making a difference.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for being here and answering this interpellation today.

The Government has once again been clear about the goal of the reform agenda: increased transparency and increased efficiency. Let us therefore begin by looking at the question of efficiency. An effective aid should be an aid that steers towards the goals of the aid: to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. An effective aid means that Swedish tax money helps more people towards empowerment and prosperity. I hope we are in agreement on that point.

Despite this, the government, in an amendment to the regulatory letter to the Export and Investment Council, has deleted the reference to reporting the results according to the aid objective. In any case, the aid objective is mentioned in the guidelines sent out in February, just as the Minister pointed out, but why was it deleted in the amendment to the regulatory letter only two months later? Why does the Minister for Development say one thing in his answer to me, but another thing in the amendment? Is that effective governance, does the Minister believe?

Mr. Speaker! We then have the question of transparency within aid. The Minister has previously criticized that aid channeled through civil society does not fall under the principle of public access and that this is problematic as we, as citizens, cannot follow where the tax money goes.

Let me first inform the Minister that the principle of public access applies to aid funding through civil society. It is possible to request documents. It is possible to request the organizations' annual reports.

At the same time, the government is updating the regulatory letter with a reference that business confidentiality shall be taken into account in the Export Council's activities. In what way does the transparency increase by channeling aid through private companies with business confidentiality? In what way does it become clearer for the taxpayers how our tax money is used if business confidentiality is to prevail regarding how the crowns have been spent?

Mr. Speaker! The government's regulatory letter to Sweden's Export and Investment Council means that double standards are being introduced in the same system.

The aid channeled through Sida and civil society shall be measured against the aid objective. Higher requirements for transparency in reporting shall be set. Business Sweden does not need to report the results according to the aid objective. The results shall be reported, but it is permitted to refer to confidentiality in its reporting.

This new system appears both arbitrary and unfair. I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how the export council's special status can lead to increased transparency and efficiency in Swedish aid.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jacob Risberg, for the interpellation!

I welcome the Green Party's somewhat newly discovered interest in transparency in aid. It is good if we can get more parties to stand behind the important principle that it is incredibly important that Swedish taxpayers always feel that Swedish aid makes a difference, that there is a traceability and that there is a measurability in the efforts.

This work has fluctuated a bit in recent years. The previous alliance government placed very great importance on it and developed the Openaid database. It is an important instrument and a mechanism for, as an individual taxpayer and citizen, to be able to follow how aid funds are used.

It is a task that perhaps has not been fully prioritized in recent years. We can see that the transparency in Swedish aid, according to independent assessors, has actually decreased under the red-green government. It is clearly problematic.

Now we take up this matter again. That is why we so regularly report back in different documents, even though we would like to limit the number of goals. They have, as Jacob Risberg knows, been very many in the aid. There has been an enormous lack of focus which has also received criticism from independent evaluators. So much is prioritized that one can ask the question: What is actually prioritized? That, in turn, contributes to a lack of efficiency.

We are introducing clear goals regarding precisely transparency and openness. This is an ongoing work. We are not finished. It is perhaps a bit early to evaluate it yet. More will follow. Since I am receiving detailed questions here, I would however like to repeat what I have written in my answer.

The amendment to the regulatory letter made in April provides a limited picture of the situation and Business Sweden's mandate and reporting requirements. That is exactly what I said in my response. To get a complete picture of the requirements on Business Sweden when it comes to specifically transparency and traceability, one must read the regulatory letter in its entirety together with the guidelines for Business Sweden's operations. These were decided by the government on 22 February.

One must see that it is a whole. When we receive that type of reporting, we shall return to it and whether it needs to be developed. I do not rule that out. We have high ambitions for the transparency work in the entire aid policy. Exactly what Jacob Risberg highlights concerns 65 million out of a total of 56 billion. I wish we could have received as many interpellations regarding the transparency for the remaining little over 55 billion. But they might come, what do I know.

Let us work together to increase the transparency and traceability of aid funds. Now we are taking new steps to do just that. Taxpayers should be able to be assured that the tax funds allocated to aid actually make a difference.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the somewhat vague answer.

First and foremost, I want to say that Miljöpartiet has always been in favor of increased transparency in aid. It is always possible to find ways to make it more efficient. At the same time, Sweden always tends to rank at the top among the measurements that OECD Dac makes, both regarding efficiency and transparency within aid, regardless of what information the Minister seems to be sitting on.

At its core, trade can be good for development and be an important part of Sweden's international development cooperation. I agree with that. That Business Sweden can help companies contribute to economic development and to green and digital transition in low- and middle-income countries is in itself obvious and absolutely nothing we oppose, on the contrary.

But aid exists to help the most needy out of hunger, poverty, and oppression. There I hope we agree, regardless of what other goals the Minister seems to think exist within aid since the red-green government. It is not there to benefit Swedish companies or European export companies.

The DAC rules state very clearly that development, not export promotion, must be the main purpose of an intervention for it to be counted as aid. When the OECD's aid committee's evaluation group visited Sweden last year and conducted a mid-term review of its reviews of Swedish aid, it wrote a report with a number of recommendations, which I hope the Minister has taken to heart.

OECD's evaluations are usually the most important reference for analysis of the quality of the member countries' aid and development policy. One of the clear recommendations that the mid-term review gave was not to finance export support with aid as it is judged to not be effective.

Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office has recently found that the governance of Business Sweden has several deficiencies. I quote from their report: "The latter is shown, for example, by the lack of sufficient control and follow-up mechanisms."

This organization, without experience of previously working with aid, is now receiving grants from the aid budget and at the same time ambiguous messages from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on how it should report results within a completely new field, and business confidentiality is allowed to prevail.

At the same time, Sida's aid activities through civil society are being significantly restructured, with short notice and without proper anchoring. I therefore ask the Minister again: Is this really effective and transparent?

How can it be more effective to provide aid funds to an organization without experience in how it can be managed and reported than to the civil society organizations with decades of experience in the countries concerned?

Given what the Minister of State says about it only being a small part of the regulatory letter, I wonder: When should business secrecy prevail if it does not apply to everything? What are the things that Business Sweden does not need to report based on the agency's goals?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was nice that Jacob Risberg nevertheless says that one is for trade and that it can be good sometimes. But it is not a powerful speech about precisely that we need more trade with the developing countries.

I would perhaps recommend that Jacob Risberg listen to what many developing countries themselves say. The very strongest demand for more trade with Swedish companies, investments, entrepreneurship, and innovation does not come from the chamber, but it comes from the developing countries themselves.

They want to be able to stand on their own feet. They want to get access to more private capital and more investments. Very many of the developing countries, which for decades have received very large sums of Swedish aid, continue to be just as poor now as before. It is a fact that it looks that way.

Then one can do as the previous red-green government did, and it seems that the red-greens still today say that one should do exactly as one has always done. One must ensure that there are watertight partitions between aid and trade. There must not be any mixing at all.

Aid is something that one should give. Then it is good with that, even if one does not reach the goals and the results that one hopes to obtain. Or one can do as we say, urged by many developing countries. Let us see if we can be modern here.

Can we find synergies between aid and trade? Can we use parts of the aid? I want to point out that we are talking about 65 million out of 56 billion here, something that the Green Party seems to have such big problems with. Can we use them to get more of the trade between our countries started?

I was in Berlin on Monday and Tuesday and listened to President Zelenskyy. He explicitly highlighted this. They need more weapons. They need them to win the war. But he also explicitly pointed out: Come to us with your companies. Let us see if we can find collaborations. Otherwise, we will not win this war.

It is also a form of building resilience. But it is not only in Ukraine. I was recently in Zambia and received exactly the same request. There was a very great interest in finding this type of cooperation.

I also just want to point out that no funds from Business Sweden are paid out to individual companies. The purpose of the funds is to support Swedish companies, which are often far ahead in DAC-capable sectors. It could be green transition. It could be energy infrastructure. It could be digitalization etcetera. They shall be given a greater opportunity to reach out to low- and middle-income countries. They thus contribute, let us remember that, Jacob Risberg, to green and digital transition.

We have completely different starting points in this. The Government sees that Swedish companies that are engaged and that are very far ahead in development can play an important role, and the developing countries see that too. I can only regret that others do not seem to see it.

I noted that Miljöpartiet on its website writes that they want to use the aid to accelerate the phasing out of fossil energy and enable investments in renewables to also reach the very poorest. I think that is an absolutely excellent ambition. The question is just how it is going to happen if Swedish companies that are at the forefront regarding green transition are not involved in it. That simply won't work! Then it will just be words on a paper. It will just be a pamphlet, but we won't achieve results.

Then, secrecy may still need to apply sometimes so that it does not become an unreasonable competitive situation. That is how it has been previously, even under red-green governments. There is not full transparency in all aid, and the principle of public access does not apply to individual aid organizations when it, for example, concerns emails. In that case, one must instead turn to the annual reports. It is clear that there are limitations, but let us not pretend that this is something new and that it would only apply to Business Sweden.

I would like to see us increase transparency in all Swedish aid. Let me come back to how we can do that.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we are fundamentally in agreement that trade can contribute to this. But it is a question of that one should not measure the efficiency against the goals of the aid. That must, after all, be the basic idea with the aid. It sounds a bit like that the Minister does not quite trust OECD-DAC in these matters when they say that this is not effective.

The government constantly points out the need for increased transparency in aid. But when it comes to aid money via Business Sweden, information shall be kept secret. It is completely the wrong way to go. At the same time, the Minister repeatedly criticizes civil society's management of the aid, and Sida has therefore received a special mandate to overhaul the system.

The instructions from the department to Sida state that all actors who are to receive support via the special strategy on support must re-apply for their activities according to new formats, which is currently ongoing. The fact that the government wants to redesign the system and open it up for more organizations is one thing. It is another thing how it is being done.

Sidas agreement covers 17 Swedish actors and nearly 2,000 organizations and programs in over 90 countries. It is local organizations operating under extremely difficult conditions in countries such as Honduras, South Sudan, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo that, completely without warning, are informed that the contracts with the Swedish state will not apply.

The government's way of tearing up agreements has also led to international protests. The procedure contradicts agreements within the OECD's development cooperation on how cooperation with civil society should proceed. Despite the government promising in the Tidö Agreement to prioritize support for civil society, the government is now acting in a way that causes damage.

The government's handling of the aid continues to shock and horrify. If it continues like this, there are good reasons to believe that we will see each other in the chamber again soon, City Councilor Forssell, because as has been said, there are 55 billion to discuss.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me return to the question that was asked regarding Business Sweden. It is a business model that is somewhat unique, one might say. It is true as Jacob Risberg says; an audit was conducted some time ago that received both praise and criticism.

Material from several years back in time has been examined, and the focus is on the time of red-green governments. I agree that the report gives reason to reflect quite a bit on the effectiveness. From the government's side, we have submitted a response on how we intend to proceed with this. The response was addressed on Tuesday in this chamber without debate or comments from Miljöpartiet or any other party. There, Jacob Risberg can read more about how we intend to act regarding this.

We as a government are fully committed to increasing transparency in aid, which has decreased in recent years. That is why we are now trying to push this clearly in all strategies. It is an important principle issue. Naturally, this also includes quality aspects, and in order to be able to measure quality, the aid must be transparent.

We take a new approach. We will ensure that we find synergies between aid and trade, exactly what the developing countries themselves are constantly calling for. It must not just become empty words on a piece of paper. We will get more Swedish world-leading companies within DAC-eligible sectors - green transition, energy infrastructure and digitalization to name a few - to establish themselves in the developing countries so that we can break the poverty and the suffering that has continued in many of these countries for generation after generation.

We will certainly have reason to return to the transparency part regarding the 56 million. Perhaps there will also be interpellations from Jacob Risberg regarding the other 56 billion and how we can increase transparency in them. I hope that he thinks it is just as important, because transparency cannot only apply when it concerns Business Sweden.

With this, I would like to wish Jacob Risberg a very pleasant weekend and thank him for the interpellation.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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