Response to interpellation 2023/24:78 on the effects of the restructuring of Swedish aid

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked several questions regarding the government's reform agenda for Swedish aid.

The Government has in the budget bills for 2023 and 2024 announced that a reform agenda for aid is being developed with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency and efficiency. I look forward to presenting it during the autumn.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs has been informed about the work, and all parties have been invited to consultations at the UD.

The reform agenda is not legislation. If it becomes a matter of legislation at a later stage, it will naturally go through the Riksdag. With the world around us today, and with a war in our near area, we must be able to reorient aid quickly.

In Swedish aid, which amounts to 56 billion kronor, costs that are classified as official development assistance (ODA, Official Development Assistance) are included. The aid is therefore not in conflict with the OECD-DAC's regulatory framework. Swedish aid efforts have continued to have the primary purpose of creating conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. That the government, for example, weighs migration policy factors in the choice of recipients of Swedish aid is not in conflict with the OECD-DAC's regulatory framework for ODA. Every donor has the right to choose with whom, where, and how they engage in development cooperation.

Sweden is a strong voice for democracy, human freedoms and rights, and the principles of the rule of law in order to increase people's freedom and to combat oppression, alleviate distress, and build prosperity.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation. However, I am deeply concerned about the developments in the field of aid, and I am not entirely reassured by the Minister's answer.

In my opinion, Sweden should be a voice for solidarity, democracy, and human rights worldwide. We should have a well-functioning aid system based on the recipient's conditions. The government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has presented a policy that I believe goes in the opposite direction. That they have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and thereby reduced aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are at their greatest is a hard blow to the people who are having it the hardest in the world.

For the first time in three decades, extreme poverty in the world is increasing again. At the end of last year, it concerned nearly 700 million people, according to the World Bank. In this difficult situation, the government chooses to cut the Swedish aid. I think it is shameful.

The Left Party, on the other hand, stands up for the world's poor in its budget proposal and allocates 1 percent of GDP to aid. It can be done if the political will exists.

The Minister said in his response that a reform agenda for aid shall be developed with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency, and that it shall be presented during the autumn. I think, however, that the process for developing the agenda has, on the contrary, been characterized by a lack of precisely transparency and dialogue. This is also an opinion shared by an overwhelming majority of the civil society organizations that I have met.

The Minister said in his response that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has been informed about the work, which is correct, and that all parties have been invited to a consultation at UD regarding the agenda. I myself participated in the meeting at UD. I perceived it more as an information meeting and not as something that can be called a dialogue with a give and take.

Vänsterpartiet regrets that the reform agenda is not coming to the Riksdag as a government bill or at least a report. Such a large reorganization of Swedish aid that is now being launched must take place in as open and transparent a manner as is possible.

The government has also not presented a time for when the work should be finished, but has only said that it should be finished at some point during the autumn. To be able to discuss the content of the upcoming reform agenda in any way other than in a requested interpellation debate seems to be ruled out.

Why is the government so afraid of a proper debate on the reform agenda in the Riksdag? I think it is a major democratic deficit regarding an issue that engages so many people in our country.

A draft of the reform agenda has however leaked out, and I have taken note of the content of this. In the proposed text, the paradigm shift that the government has previously spoken about is put into practice. The government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy breaks with a long tradition of Swedish aid policy. With migration policy conditions and a tighter link between aid and trade, Sweden goes against the principle of effective aid.

Linking aid to the export of Swedish companies is neither permitted according to the OECD's agreed recommendations nor particularly effective. Figures from the OECD show that it becomes up to 30 percent more expensive for the aid recipients. I do not think this approach is effective aid.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the interpellation.

I will give Lotta Johnsson Fornarve the right on one point: We want to change Swedish aid. It was this mandate we received from the Swedish people in the election. We want to change the aid and take it away from the one-sided focus that has characterized much of the left's aid policy and which, in all honesty, still does.

It has been about too much how many resources we can put into aid and far too little about what we actually achieve. What results do we reach? How do we ensure that the 56 billion kronor that Swedish taxpayers - doctors, teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters - work together for every year and which are spent on aid are used in as effective a way as possible?

How do we ensure that the aid, every crown invested, makes as much of a difference as possible out there in the world? It concerns the girl who is not allowed to go to school, the starving boy, being able to meet the climate changes, etcetera. That is the great paradigm shift in this. We must move away from the one-sided focus on how many resources we spend and instead look more at what we actually want to achieve. How do we ensure that we achieve just that quality and efficiency?

With that said, it can be said that Sweden will continue to be a very generous aid donor. If one looks at the aid framework last year, this year, and also next year, that three-year period, one sees that the annual allocations for aid amount to 56 billion kronor.

Sweden is actually allocating more to aid over these three years than during the previous three years with a Social Democratic government supported by the Left Party. Perhaps the discussion should be moderated somewhat here. But of course, the Left Party stands up for the one percent goal and budgets for it. That is honest.

Then one can observe that with the rhetoric that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has, there is nothing preventing one from laying 2 percent if one wants to, or 3, 4 or 5 percent. The needs in that part are endless.

Madam Speaker! I and the government see a very great potential in modernizing aid. This involves, in particular, finding important synergies with trade policy. I can state that it is this entire discussion that characterizes very much of actually all international contexts one encounters.

It may not be so much about this type of interpellation debate. We have had a number of them regarding roughly the same questions, and Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has received roughly the same answers. But if one looks, for example, at the opening of the general assembly in New York just a few weeks ago, one sees that this was the question.

How are we to ensure that we can mobilize more private capital, more innovations, and more entrepreneurship? It is a utopia to believe that the needs that exist in the world could be met by aid alone. It is possible to stand in the parliamentary rostrum and say such things. But it actually has quite little to do with the reality we face because the needs are so enormously large.

Here we see as the government a very great potential. We will present our steps forward in the reform agenda that we have addressed and that we have informed about. We did that as recently as today in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where I received some questions about this.

I shall correct Lotta Johnsson Fornarve on one point. This is not legislation and it is not a bill. It has not been so earlier in that part either.

In the event that it becomes legislation, the proposal will, of course, be sent out for consultation rounds, land in the Riksdag and be treated according to all the rules of the art. A reform agenda is what we have promised the voters. We will also present this during the autumn term.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister wants to change the aid, among other things by reducing the resources for the aid. I have rarely seen an activity become better because the activity receives fewer resources at its disposal. It is usually rather the opposite. Swedish aid has a very good reputation. It has received extremely good grades in global measurements. I do not understand the enormous enthusiasm to change something that has worked really well.

In the draft of the reform agenda, it is clear that Swedish interests shall form the basis for the new aid policy. This goes completely against the principles of how aid should be conducted. If trade policy can be used to lift people out of poverty, that is of course welcome. But one must be clear that it is not the same as aid.

Trade policy and aid policy have different purposes and goals. The needs are greatest in poor or conflict-affected countries. Swedish interests and business opportunities, on the other hand, are primarily benefited in middle-income countries. Aid policy should be permeated by a rights perspective and be based on the needs of the poor. A focus on Swedish interests puts the entire aid policy in jeopardy.

That the government in its draft unilaterally writes about how it is only market-based business development that can create the conditions to achieve the overall goals of aid policy shows a lack of insight into, among other things, the importance of a functioning rule of law, strong and independent institutions, a strong general welfare, developed health and medical care, and social security that covers everyone. Children's opportunities for a good schooling are hardly mentioned at all. We know that good schooling and good education are an incredibly important success factor that cannot be underestimated, not least when it comes to young girls.

I visited Zambia this week together with the Riksdag's SRHR network to study the Swedish aid on site regarding these issues. I could see that our aid is doing good to prevent, for example, child marriages and teenage pregnancies and to support girls and women who have been subjected to gender-based violence. That type of aid must increase and not decrease. I am afraid that will not be the case with the new aid policy.

With migration policy conditions and a tighter link between aid and trade, Sweden is going against the principles of effective aid. Shortly before the turn of the year, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) agreed on a clarification of the existing guidelines for international aid in migration issues. Point by point, it is made clear how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna agreed upon stands in direct conflict with the international regulatory framework.

In the draft of the reform agenda, as well as in the current policy, the focus in aid is concentrated on Europe and especially Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is acute. Russia's war of aggression, which violates international law, has caused extensive devastation, and tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and injured.

Ukraine obviously needs international support. Sweden has every opportunity to play an important role regarding both humanitarian support and support for reconstruction. At the same time, a number of other crises, wars, and conflicts are ongoing around the world. The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel has, for example, led to thousands of civilian deaths, and the famine in Somalia and the poverty in Myanmar are just a few examples. Therefore, we argue that the support for Ukraine should take the form of additional funds, that is, beyond the existing aid budget.

In the same way, the government chooses to increase Swedish climate aid in volume while simultaneously cutting aid as a whole. This means that important interventions in other areas are lost.

Other important areas also suffer from the government's reversal. This is noticeable, among other things, in the reduced support for civil society, a drastic cut in information support, and a sharp reduction in the grant for research assistance. It is also not an effective assistance.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's policy means that we are not only asking ourselves: How can we get rid of as much money as possible on aid? One could almost get the impression that it is the overarching goal for the Vänsterpartiet, as it has been previously. Rather, the question is: How do we ensure that we use the resources we have in as effective a way as possible?

We left the one percent target. At the same time, it can be noted that Sweden is one of five countries globally that reach the UN goal of 0.7 percent. To give the impression that we in some way would have something to be ashamed of is simply not true. We are still in a completely different league than the vast majority of countries in the entire world in that regard.

Madam Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarves answer here that aid and trade should be seen as different parts does not surprise me. It is possibly an expression of the aid policy that has prevailed in Sweden for so many years and which I object to.

There are very good reasons to do so. I mean that it is a very outdated view of aid. It is very old-fashioned. Nor has it achieved the results we want it to achieve.

It is not just my opinion. One can look at many of the evaluations that have been made. For example, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis has looked closely at this. It has not only concerned some of the largest recipient countries over a few years or two, but even over several decades. Unfortunately, we can see that in several ways, the effects on poverty reduction specifically have not been sufficiently good. At times, they have not even been measurable.

Then, as the responsible politician, one has a choice to make. Either one continues in the same way as before with precisely that old aid policy, continues to focus on one-percent goals and so on. Or we ask ourselves the question: Is there really no room for improvements? Is there no room to make changes? Can we, for example, use the world-leading Swedish companies we have in a more active way in our development cooperation? Can we find synergies with the aid policy? Can we encourage more business and entrepreneurship?

For one thing we know, Madam Speaker: Aid can be effective in alleviating poverty, but to build a path to prosperity - which must be the goal of our entire development policy - it is about investments in market economy, business, entrepreneurship, innovation, research and development. History shows this with all desirable clarity.

The interesting thing is also that when one meets representatives from these countries, it is very often precisely this that they request first of all: more trade and entrepreneurship and not to be dependent on Swedish development aid year after year. It is precisely this that we shall establish in the reform agenda.

I just want to once again, for what I believe is the fourth or possibly fifth interpellation debate, to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, underline what I have said previously. That Sweden chooses which countries we want to cooperate with is naturally not in any way contrary to effective aid and does not mean that we would break any guidelines. It is we in Sweden ourselves who decide which countries we want to cooperate with and which factors we want to weigh into the decision. It is our decision.

It is not a human right to receive aid from Sweden, but it is we who decide this based on a long series of different decisions. It is about, for example, whether states respect the international law obligation to accept their own citizens. That countries oppose corruption is another example. That type of requirement we will strengthen moving forward in our reform agenda.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker and the Minister for Development Cooperation! I constantly hear the Minister speak about how Swedish interests are to be benefited with the help of development aid. That is not how development aid is intended to be used. Development aid should be permeated by a rights perspective that shall originate from the needs of the poor and not have a focus on Swedish interests. It puts the entire development aid policy in jeopardy, and I am deeply concerned about what will happen.

I also do not hear the minister seeing the importance of other important interventions such as building a strong rule of law and investing in a general welfare with good education for children, SRHR activities, resources for women and girls and so on. This is long-term aid that is so incredibly important if one seriously wants to address the great injustices that exist in the world.

I want to urge the Minister to reconsider if he is serious about the reform agenda for aid being developed with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. Then at least place the reform agenda for aid on the floor of the Riksdag to give us the opportunity to seriously discuss the issue! It is the least one can ask for when a paradigm shift regarding aid is now taking place. Such a large reorganization of Swedish aid as the one now being launched must occur in as open and transparent a manner as possible.

I am still concerned about the developments in the field of aid. Sweden shall be a voice for solidarity, democracy, and human rights worldwide. We shall have a well-functioning aid system based on the recipient's conditions, not on favoring Swedish interests. The government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has presented a policy that goes in the opposite direction. It still worries me.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, very many different things in the aid policy that we consider extremely important. SRHR is one of them. This is also evident in several of the documents we have pointed out and in the various strategies we have presented. But that is not the case for this interpellation, so I have not dwelt so much on that but rather on the questions I have received in the interpellation.

Trade and aid is an important priority for us, because we see that there is an enormous potential in modernizing aid and making it more effective. As I have said, it is about mobilizing private capital but also about bringing in more trade and investments in the recipient countries, which they themselves demand.

But, Madam Speaker, it is naturally not our only priority. SRHR is one such, and we have strengthened the humanitarian support. When we see a comprehensive famine catastrophe, for example on the Horn of Africa, we have increased the humanitarian support. We have increased the investments in democracy and human rights defenders, what we call the democracy billion. There are very many different parts in our aid policy.

We have cut out some other parts. The information notice was mentioned by Lotta Johnsson Fornarve. One can have different opinions about that and whether it was the most important priority or not. For the government, it is obvious – it was not a difficult decision – that 155 million kronor does more good in Ukraine, to increase humanitarian support or for investments in SRHR, than to be used for information initiatives in Sweden regarding aid. 155 million kronor is a very large amount to carry out information initiatives about aid in Sweden. There is an example of how one can use resources more effectively than before! It is not only how much money one spends that is important, but also how one uses it.

We have had several interpellation debates, and we had a meeting on this in the Committee on Foreign Affairs today. I am completely convinced that the debate on the reform agenda will continue with full force moving forward.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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