Response to interpellation 2024/25:85 on cuts and changes in Swedish foreign aid

Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me a number of questions concerning Swedish aid and the changes that are now being implemented by the government.

Let me begin by commenting on the one percent goal, which was abandoned in the budget bill for 2023. Swedish aid is and remains generous. Through a three-year framework of 56 billion kronor per year 2023-2025, the aid has been predictable and has become more focused and effective in line with the government's priorities.

Sweden is still one of the five countries that de facto live up to the UN's target of 0.7 percent of GNI to aid. The aid budget 2024 as a share of GNI 2024 is estimated at 0.84 percent, and as a share of GNI 2025, the aid budget is estimated to amount to 0.81 percent.

By announcing a new three-year framework of 53 billion kronor per year for 2026-2028 in the budget bill for 2025, predictability for aid is maintained. The levels for the aid framework are assessed by the government to be sufficient to contribute to the government's work with a more focused and high-quality aid and thus contribute more effectively to an implementation of the aid policy priorities during the period 2026-2028.

With that said, the development needs far exceed the available resources within the collective international development cooperation. To meet the rapidly growing funding gap, a mobilization of capital from the private sector and a better utilization of the innovation solutions that exist within the business sector are also required. The Government is also preparing a new gift tax deduction that shall cover companies and legal entities, with the aim of further increasing private financing of sustainable development in the world.

To increase predictability, there is also a cap on the deductions for costs for the reception of asylum seekers and those in need of protection in Sweden, which is a maximum of 8 percent of the assistance budget per year.

The Member of Parliament further asks if I consider it reasonable to allocate 2.6 billion kronor of the aid to finance the Swedish Migration Agency's empty refugee housing.

Firstly, the government proceeds from the forecast data prepared by the relevant authorities regarding what constitutes costs that can be counted as aid in accordance with the model for offsets described in the budget bill.

Secondly, the government is now carrying out a comprehensive reform of the migration policy and the system for the reception of asylum seekers in order to achieve a more orderly and efficient reception. To implement the reform of the reception, the Swedish Migration Agency's housing stock needs to be adapted, which may initially entail transition costs. This means, among other things, that the cost per person in the reception may increase during a period.

Regarding the question of whether Sweden should move in a direction that involves aid becoming more tied, I still believe that the main direction should be that Swedish aid shall be untied. The tied aid to, for example, Swedish civil society organizations and Swedish authorities constitutes only a small part of the total aid budget.

Lotta Johansson Fornarve has also asked me about the link between return costs and international aid. In a time of increased irregular migration and forced displacement, migration has become an increasingly important area within development cooperation. The fact that people are driven into flight by lack of future prospects, war, oppression, or poverty creates enormous suffering, and the humanitarian needs in the world are very large today. Furthermore, a significant number of people migrate irregularly without a need for protection, which entails both risks for the individual and negative consequences for receiving countries.

The government has been clear that the aid policy shall be focused to constitute a tool to counter irregular migration, increase returns, and contribute to effective work for voluntary return and sustainable reintegration.

Finally, Lotta Johansson Fornarve has asked me what the reason is for the government now abandoning PGU.

The millennium goals that formed the basis for PGU have been replaced by Agenda 2030 and the global goals for sustainable development. The goals and perspectives that were included in PGU are included in all material respects in the goal that the Riksdag has approved for Agenda 2030. As a major donor of development aid, climate financing, and humanitarian support, Sweden contributes strongly to the global implementation of Agenda 2030.

To cover the large financing needs, however, resource mobilization from other sources of funding is required. Development cooperation also needs to function to a greater extent as a lever to increase domestic resource mobilization and mobilize private capital flows for sustainable investments, not least in Africa. The Government is therefore also working to preserve synergies between trade and aid - manifested in the reform agenda for aid but also in the foreign trade strategy that has been adopted - in order to promote sustainable growth in the world.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation!

When we see how poverty is increasing again in the world and how crises and conflicts are deepening, it is important that wealthy countries like Sweden lead the way and stand up for generous international aid.

The Minister says that the levels for the government's aid framework are judged to be sufficient to contribute to the government's work with a more focused, high-quality, and effective aid. It indicates that the government considers that the previous aid has not been sufficiently effective and high-quality. Aid has been smeared by the government since it came to power, this despite the fact that Swedish aid has received a very good grade and often been highlighted as an example globally by, among others, the OECD.

Now the government is instead dismantling a well-functioning aid system, while simultaneously making significant cuts. In a time when aid was needed most, more than ever, the government chooses to abandon the one percent goal, which has been fixed for decades. In this year's budget, a further reduction of the aid by 3 billion from 2026 is also announced.

The forecast is that Sweden in 2028 will fall below 0.7 percent of GNI in aid if there is even the slightest development of the Swedish economy. Thus, the government is deviating from the EU's and the UN's recommendations regarding the level of aid. Is it really the minister's intention that Sweden should not even stand up for the EU's stated recommendations when it comes to international aid? And can he imagine lowering the aid even further? Is there any lower limit?

Sweden, which for a long time has been seen as an international model when it comes to international aid, is now losing its leading position. To reduce aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who are having it hardest in the world and sends completely wrong signals to the rest of the world's wealthy countries.

The government would rather lower taxes for Sweden's millionaires than maintain a decent international aid. It is well self-evident that money matters. Everyone who has a limited household budget knows that if a third of the budget disappears, there will be fewer items in the grocery bag. Everyone understands that if more than 10 billion disappears from the aid, and then an additional 3 billion in 2026, there will be less money for democracy, less money for climate and human rights defenders, less money to help women exposed to violence, and less money to give children a good and safe schooling, access to clean water, and so on.

The fact that the government also chooses to allocate 2.6 billion of the aid to the Swedish Migration Agency's empty refugee housing means that the Swedish Migration Agency will become one of the largest recipients of Swedish aid in 2025. This does not benefit people living in poverty and oppression.

It is, to say the least, remarkable to use aid to cover costs for domestic integration, which contravenes the OECD-DAC rules, which the government has acknowledged. Does the Minister not believe that Sweden should live up to and follow the OECD-DAC rules?

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

Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is and remains one of the world's most generous aid countries. The picture being painted of the government supposedly deflourishing the Swedish aid work or dismantling Swedish aid is not shared by the government. I do not recognize myself in that picture. A few weeks ago, I visited the UN General Assembly. There, the adjustments to Swedish aid that are coming were well known.

We are not a lone satellite in the world doing this, but there are many other countries that are also forced to make tough priorities. We must be clear to ourselves that there are also major problems here at home.

We have a tough situation regarding the security situation around the Baltic Sea with Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, which means that we must also upgrade our defense. We have a situation linked to gang crime that has become increasingly acute, with shootings, bomb attacks and other things. Then, as a politician, one must prioritize. We will never promise everything to everyone or promise around and hold thin, but now we are doing what we went to the election on.

One must also keep in mind that even with an adjustment of 3 billion, Swedish aid work is not overturned, and we remain one of the world's most generous aid donors, which there is every reason to be proud of.

The overall goal of aid is to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. The Government therefore prioritizes poverty reduction, human freedoms and rights, democracy, environment and climate, as well as women's and girls' full enjoyment of human rights and empowerment highly. A problem with Swedish aid in recent decades is that we have been somewhat of a sprinkler and have not invested and watered where it grows.

Now we are focusing aid in a clearer way where we ourselves feel we can do the most good and in regions and places where we also do the most good. It means that we are prepared to make some tough priorities within the aid framework that exists. We are prepared to invest more resources in countries and projects where we feel it is going well, and in countries and projects where we feel it is not working well, we are prepared to scale down or completely scale away activities.

It is these kinds of tough priorities that were not made by the previous government supported by the Left Party. But I promise that we will do so so that we get maximum efficiency and benefit from the very generous aid framework that we have.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for further answers.

The Minister says that there are big problems at home and that one must prioritize, but then I think one is making a very strange prioritization when one chooses to lower the tax for millionaires instead of maintaining a high level in aid and the Swedish welfare.

It is not enough that the government is cutting aid by just over 10 billion. That is a lot of money. But then another 3 billion disappears next year. It is obvious that it will be noticed. It will affect the most vulnerable and poorest people in the world. I received no answer as to whether there is a minimum level for aid. Does the minister not think it is a problem that from 2028 Sweden will not reach the level that the EU recommends, that is, 0.7 percent?

The government's new reform agenda for aid implies a new direction for aid. Aid shall to a greater extent be for the purpose of satisfying Swedish interests. This actually goes against how aid should be used. Aid shall benefit the recipient, not the donor. Aid shall go to those who are in greatest need of support and not to benefit Swedish companies.

In addition to the efforts in the war in Ukraine, which is now Sweden's largest recipient of aid, the government is now increasingly prioritizing those countries where Swedish companies have interests. In 2024, support will be concluded for Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Mali, and South Sudan, some of the world's most vulnerable countries. During the coming years, additional partner countries will be phased out. It is worrying.

The government speaks of reforms for effective aid, but it does not add up when the major changes involve using aid for Swedish export agencies. It is not effective aid but leans more towards tied aid, something that has been condemned by serious aid organizations. The Minister now says in his response that the main direction shall be untied aid. That sounds good, of course, but the new direction points towards a more tied aid. Tied aid is both more expensive and less effective. The cost for tied aid is estimated to be 15-30 percent higher than for untied. An untied aid is therefore much more effective.

The government also wants to link the aid to increasing return without being clear about what type of return costs can be financed with international aid. According to the OECD's regulations, only voluntary, safe, and dignified return of refugees from one developing country to another can be aid activity. Return from Sweden can never ever be financed with any form of aid funds.

Furthermore, using a large sum of the aid for domestic integration, completely contrary to the OECD-DAC rules, is remarkable to say the least. A full 893 million kronor of the aid budget goes to Ukrainian refugees. I have absolutely nothing against us supporting Ukrainian refugees, but it is not aid. An additional 506 million kronor is taken from the aid for flat-rate payments for integration, which also may not be counted as aid. Does the Minister not believe that Sweden should follow the OECD-DAC rules? I would like to have an answer to that.

In the budget, the government announces that the policy for global development, PGU, is being abandoned, with reference to the work with Agenda 2030. Vänsterpartiet views the risks of this with concern, not least considering that the government's work with Agenda 2030 is not sufficient. PGU was developed after a long process of discussions and consensus. Why is the government abandoning the policy for global development?

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

Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think Lotta Johnsson Fornarve underestimates the government's aid policy when she calls it a "new direction." I want to assert that this is the largest reorganization of Swedish aid since the 70s.

It is true that Swedish aid will look very different in two years than it did two years ago. It is about the fact that we have partially settled the rather strange arrangement of having a one percent goal. I think it is strange that we must automatically provide additional aid funds just because it is going well for Swedish companies and because Scania exports another truck. Instead, we should consider where Swedish aid money does the most good and where the needs in the world are greatest right now.

When we talk about Swedish interests, it can partly be about linking trade with aid. It is primarily about building up the local, regional and national business sector on-site in the country. No country has ever been lifted out of poverty solely through aid, but it happens by building institutions, trading with other countries and building up a market economy, something I know the Vänsterpartiet does not feel particularly strongly for.

Through the work in Ukraine, we show how the synergies between trade and aid have come the furthest. There, we are making a real effort to get Swedish companies to source or otherwise do business with the local, regional, and national Ukrainian business community. We also have a special mission to help with the approach to the EU and to build up the Ukrainian business community. I hope that we can duplicate or in different ways use the model that we are now building up in Ukraine in more places around the world where precisely trade and aid can find each other and make a long-term difference for very poor countries or for countries that find themselves in a conflict situation.

Safeguarding Swedish interests is also about looking at how one takes a stand on important national or security policy trade-offs. We look closely at how different countries vote in relation to Russia and Ukraine. I do not know if it is controversial for Vänsterpartiet, but for me it is a self-evident matter that countries that in different ways take a stand for Russia's cause over Ukraine's should not receive Swedish tax money.

It can also be about linking aid policy more closely to immigration policy, something that we, for example, had a press conference about earlier this week. We have said in the reform agenda and also in what was presented this week that the starting point shall be OECD-DAC, but in exceptional cases, one can deviate from it. The starting point shall, however, always be OECD-DAC.

Regarding prioritizing on the home front, it is important for the government to show early on how the aid framework will be changed, so that Sida and other agencies working with aid get predictable rules of the game and can adapt their operations accordingly. I think it has been a serious process where we have weighed these different interests against each other. Lowering the tax is nothing I am ashamed of.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister says that this is the largest reallocation ever of Swedish aid. But why is it not built upon what has actually worked previously? Swedish aid has received very good grades in international comparisons and is often presented as an example globally. I have nothing against trade, but aid must never be used to primarily benefit Swedish companies and Swedish interests; it must instead benefit the recipient.

Do it over and do it right, Minister! Return to 1 percent of GDP going to international aid! It is entirely possible. We show this in the Left Party in our shadow budget, where we stand up for the world's poor by allocating 1 percent of GDP to international aid while simultaneously making large investments in welfare and the green transition. This is possible if you make the right priorities and do not prioritize lowering taxes for the country's millionaires.

Ensure that aid funds go towards benefiting those who have the greatest need: the world's poorest, children, women, democracy fighters, environmental activists and the vulnerable! Do not cut the aid to Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan and Cambodia, but strengthen it! Aid should not go towards benefiting Swedish entrepreneurs but towards benefiting the world's poor. Do it over and do it right! Sweden can do better. Let us once again take the lead in the world and stand up for a generous international aid!

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

Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think this debate clearly shows the ideological dividing lines between the Moderates and the Left Party and between the government and the opposition. It is true that the Left Party wants to raise taxes for nursing assistants and bus drivers in order to increase the welfare budget.

We have long been critical of the one percent goal. Just because it is going well for Scania, AstraZeneca, Ericsson or Spotify, the aid must increase. When someone somewhere in the world signs up for another Spotify subscription, we must automatically increase the aid budget. It is a rather strange order. I am proud that we have now settled it.

The money shall go to those most in need - to the democracy and women's rights activists all around the world who are fighting against authoritarian regimes or oppressive states. Therefore, we are increasing transparency, cutting down on the number of transaction links, and clearing up bureaucracy and administration, so that as much money as possible goes to precisely those actors.

I promise that I will never be ashamed of favoring Swedish companies and the Swedish business community. It is precisely Swedish companies that contribute to new tax revenues, so that we can also afford a development aid budget as generous as the one we will have even after next year.

Finding the synergies between trade and aid is primarily about building up the local, regional, and national business sector. When I meet representatives from other countries, poorer countries – it can be foreign ministers, foreign trade ministers, or aid ministers – they are often very happy about the Swedish aid, but they are often even happier when we talk about trade and about getting Swedish companies to establish themselves in these often vulnerable and complex places around the world. There, I am proud of all the work that Sida, Exportkreditnämnden, and Svensk Exportkredit do. It is nothing I am ashamed of.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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