Response to interpellation 2025/26:464 on the decommissioning of Sida
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 is implementing the largest aid reform in decades to increase efficiency and transparency 1. M emphasizes that Sida is not to be abolished but is undergoing a reorganization with stricter mandates against corruption and evidence-based work 1 2 3. M argues that previous problems are due to S and MP 2. M emphasizes that the government has reduced Sida's budget, abolished the one percent goal, and increased support to Ukraine 3. M believes it would be controversial to withdraw the work against corruption or worsen the transparency on Openaid 4. M is concerned about the financing of increased aid 4. SD considers that Sida has structural and cultural problems 5 6. SD suggests that one should consider reorganizing the organization or moving aid to other actors 6. SD appreciates the minister's work 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Wiechel has asked me how I view a phasing out of Sida in its current form in order to further strengthen the effectiveness of aid, ensure better control over how the funds are channeled, and minimize the risk of both politicization and misuse.
Let me first state that the government is now implementing the largest reform of Swedish aid in decades. Since the government took office in 2022, the ambition to reform aid has been clear: Swedish aid shall be long-term, transparent, evidence-based, and effective.
Aid must reach people in poverty and oppression and not get stuck in inefficient structures or with actors who do not meet basic requirements. Aid shall be an important foreign policy tool that contributes to building relations, partnerships, and influence. This also benefits Sweden.
The government's reforming of aid has also entailed a comprehensive reform of Sida. Sida fulfills an important function in implementing the government's policy. Sida delivers annual results within the government's priorities, including among other things within the extensive support to Ukraine, where Sida's programs have been able to provide crucial support to sectors such as energy support and reconstruction.
The question of how Sida should be governed and organized in order to be able to provide a reformed, effective aid is continuously reviewed by the government. The government has no intention of phasing out Sida.
An important component in Sida's change work is the agency's new instruction, which entered into force in 2025. The new instruction strengthens Sida's work within several key areas.
Furthermore, the government has, through a number of assignments to Sida, given the agency assignments aimed at being able to conduct aid as effectively and transparently as possible. I want to emphasize above all the assignments that the government has given regarding conflict of interest and corruption. These have now contributed to Sida having a much more robust system for handling suspicions of irregularities.
Furthermore, a mandate has been given to Sida to strengthen impact monitoring and ensure that scientifically developed evidence and proven experience form the basis for the implementation of aid strategies. Measures are being taken systematically and shall lead to increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Through regular dialogues with the authority, the appointment of board members, budget allocations, new aid strategies and mandates in the annual regulatory letter, the government can continuously ensure that current policy and its changes are implemented in Sida's activities.
The clear direction the government has given Sida has been demanding for the agency and has entailed several far-reaching changes. Among these, the agency has undergone a reorganization to better be able to handle the government's direction and focus. Sida has come a good way in its transformation process, and the necessary work needs to continue.
Markus Wiechel (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to the Minister for the answer to this interpellation. Aid is an incredibly important issue generally speaking, I would say, and Sida is perhaps particularly so.
I share the Minister's view on this. It is clearly positive that the Minister highlighted all the positive changes that the government has now implemented. I think they are necessary and good, and it is a big step in the right direction even when it comes to Sida.
Despite all the positive changes that the Minister has implemented, we still see problems with Sida as an agency. We see a lack of long-term follow-up and that much data has been collected on short-term performances but lacks systematic follow-up of not least long-term effects and results in relation to overall aid goals.
We also see weak control and a risk of misuse. We have seen how continued payments have been made to organizations with dubious connections. For example, 55 million kronor went to an activity under Hamas control and to events with Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
We see historical inefficiency and failures. Afghanistan is a rather clear example. Over 14 billion kronor were funneled there until 2021, which contributed more to corruption and a culture of dependency than to sustainable development.
Much of this can, of course, be addressed with the reforms that have been implemented, but there is still a culture and a structure within Sida that I believe is deeply problematic and which makes this more difficult than just implementing the changes that have been carried out.
It is also unnecessarily complicated and resource-intensive processes, not least within humanitarian aid, with time-consuming partner selection, unclear decisions and a lack of systematic follow-up. Much of this has also been noted by the Swedish National Audit Office previously.
Last but not least: At Sida, we have repeatedly seen ideological priorities instead of priorities based on evidence. Focus is placed on ideological projects with weak follow-up rather than on projects where there might actually be a need.
Mr. Speaker! I have a few follow-up questions for the Minister. How does the Minister view that Sida, despite the reform work that has been carried out to a large extent, still exhibits the same fundamental problems? Is the Minister prepared to investigate a more comprehensive restructuring or similar of Sida, given that the problem may remain? Are there any measurable results, not just processes, from Sida's activities that the Minister can point to in the long term?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that I completely agree with Member Wiechel regarding the major problems that have been building up in Swedish aid for decades.
I must admit that I was shocked during my first day as minister at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. One has not had a grip on where tax money has gone, and one has not had a grip on which organizations and projects they have gone to. We do not even know how many projects and efforts have been financed during a given year. This applies primarily to what is called onward transmission, where money has been channeled through very many different links.
It could be about tens of thousands of projects, initiatives, and organizations. How many of them are really good and should perhaps receive more money? How many of them are harmful and corrupt and should not receive a single krona? How many are in between, that is, projects where the money perhaps did not go towards Rolex watches and corruption but also not towards development? We do not know, because the disparity has been far too extensive.
I usually describe Swedish aid as having been a sprinkler: We have been everywhere all the time without having a sufficiently good grip on the money. It would never have been accepted in any other policy area. It would never have been accepted that a Minister for Health, despite having had time to prepare an answer to a question, did not know how many health centers or hospitals there were or how much money Sweden, through the regions, spent on, for example, healthcare. But when it comes to aid, it feels like almost anything goes. We see one extreme case after another.
I shall address some of the questions that the member raises.
As soon as we became aware that money had gone to workshops and panel discussions where Hamas and Islamic Jihad were present, we called the former Director-General Granit to question him about what had actually happened. What became clear then was that this was entirely in line with all the previous governing documents. The problem has therefore not primarily been Sida, but the Social Democratic and Green Party aid policy that has characterized Swedish aid for far too long. It has been thought that it has been completely okay for money to have gone here and there without anyone having kept track of it.
Another case is Tanzania. Since the 60s, the Swedish people have contributed 70 billion in Tanzania. Even if some of the money may have disappeared in corruption, one might think that these 70 billion Swedish kronor must have done some good, but independent evaluations indicate that one actually cannot see any effect at all. During certain periods, the aid has even had a negative effect on the country's wealth development because the pressure for reform on Tanzania's government has subsided.
There are, therefore, many problems with Swedish aid, and the root of them has been political decisions. It is political decisions that have laid the foundation for the lack of focus, and it is political decisions that have opened up for giving money that has financed workshops and panel discussions for terrorists. It is political decisions that have allowed Swedish money to go to countries without any development being seen at all.
Step by step, we are now cleaning up this to get better control over where our money goes – and to combat poverty and help people in need.
Markus Wiechel (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I truly share that view; it is definitely the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's aid policy that has created these problems.
It is also somewhat why I raise the problems that exist within Sida as an agency. I see them as structural and cultural problems within the agency, which makes it difficult to break this. We have an agency here that in some cases works against its own objectives and the government's priorities, and where we see that the work has not been results-oriented, transparent, and so on.
I mean that an aid authority, if one is to have such, must be loyal to the priorities of the government and the Riksdag and not act as we have seen Sida do in several cases. I also share the Minister's concern about what may come forward if we receive continued governance from the mentioned parties, not least considering that they are so keen to send money out of the country at any cost without knowing where it actually goes.
As has been said, there are reasons to be concerned that the problems we see cannot be solved unless one makes changes and does things correctly. As I mentioned, it is structural and cultural problems we see at Sida. Would it therefore not be easier to simply redo the entire organization? Alternatively, perhaps the government could be open to moving more aid from Sida and letting other actors take care of it, in order to minimize the risks.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! Just as the member says, there is no room for Sida to pursue its own aid policy or its own foreign policy. It is the government that governs the realm, and the authorities shall loyally follow the government's policy.
It is clear that one can review different methods of governance, but if we are to have any form of aid at all, we must organize it in some way.
It is not the case that all aid money is channeled through Sida today, but quite a lot goes, for example, directly from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Since the turn of the year, Sida has approximately 20 percent less in its budget, so exactly what the member proposes has already been decided. They are being implemented right now. It is less money to Sida and more money directly to, for example, Ukraine, which is fighting not only for its own freedom and sovereign integrity but also for our freedom.
I would also like to assert that there has never in Sweden's history been a government that has done as much as quickly as this government has in the field of aid.
We have abolished the one percent goal, which means that from 2027 onwards there will be 22 billion that can go to healthcare, school and care here in Sweden instead of to aid to other countries.
We have reduced the disparity by phasing out approximately eleven bilateral strategies. This concerns Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Mali, Burkina Faso, Tanzania and Liberia, to name a few.
We have, in just one and a half years, almost doubled the aid to Ukraine. Ukraine is now not only the largest recipient of Swedish aid but also receives almost 20 percent of all our aid.
We have linked the aid policy with other policy areas. Trade and aid have been linked, as have migration policy and aid policy, which means that we now set a counter-requirement on receiving countries: If one is to receive Swedish tax funds, one must also receive its own citizens. This has yielded results in several countries.
We have strengthened the governance of Sida's work against fraud and corruption. We have strengthened the governance of Sida to ensure that the agency works much more evidence-based and cost-effectively. We have improved transparency so that the Swedish people, the Riksdag, and journalists can scrutinize what is happening. Openaid is now updated more often, and more aid projects will also be reported. The Swedish people should simply be able to see where their money ends up.
We have also strengthened the governance of Sida to ensure that the agency now guarantees that not a single Swedish tax krona shall go to organizations that undermine the rights of women and girls. Money shall not go to, for example, extremism and Islamism, and a precautionary principle shall also be applied. We therefore do not want money to go to, for example, workshops for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
We have removed the so-called info-contribution of 155 million kronor every year. These funds did not go to any actual aid, but to communication efforts and marketing of aid projects toward a Swedish audience. I have seen many aid projects, not least after Trump's heavy cuts. I have, for example, visited a refugee camp in Uganda where they can hardly afford rice and beans and where hunger is always felt as present. In my stomach, it feels much better to give money to those types of efforts than to give money to made-up communication efforts here at home in Sweden.
We are doing a great deal, and it is moving very fast. The purpose is to get a better grip on our money and ensure that our money does maximum good.
Markus Wiechel (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank the Minister for the thorough review of the changes that have occurred.
This is probably my last speech in the Riksdag. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for the fine work he has performed. I think he is one of the better Ministers and one of the Ministers in the government who has made the greatest positive difference. I am very satisfied with much of the work, and I am convinced that it will continue.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for all the answers that have come through the years. I know that in some cases I have been a bit difficult in my questioning. I have appreciated the Minister's work and think that he has performed it well.
My last question, Mr. Speaker, is this: What concerns the government most regarding a potential shift in power in Sweden after the election?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! I also want to take this opportunity to thank Markus Wiechel for his questions and for our interpellation debates. It has been a great and true pleasure. I believe the member has fulfilled his democratic duty towards his constituents by demanding accountability from the government. I thank him very much for that.
I must admit that there are many things that I would be worried about with a new government. It would be controversial to withdraw certain things. It would, for example, at least in my book, be quite controversial if one withdrew the work we have carried out linked to bribery and corruption or if one worsened the transparency of Openaid.
What I believe is most likely is that aid will increase overall. No opposition party has answered how this is to be financed, but it can be financed in three different ways.
One can cut back in other areas. I would like to have answers as to which hospitals or elderly care homes will be affected by this and which taxes should be raised to finance it.
One can borrow from future generations, but it only means that our children and grandchildren will be forced to foot the bill.
One can also raise taxes. I want to know exactly who will have to pay the increased taxes so that more will go abroad.
I am very concerned about this. I am also concerned that there will not be as good control and that the disparity will increase again. It is, above all, the Social Democrats who for decades have built up the aid-industrial complex that we are now step by step rolling back in order to get better control over the money.
I would like to extend a big thank you to Markus Wiechel for this time. I would also like to take the opportunity to wish the member a happy Midsummer.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.