Response to interpellations 2023/24:645 and 673 on the role of civil society and Swedish aid
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers civil society to be an indispensable part of aid and wants to increase the funds to these organizations. M wants to create a more open and inclusive application procedure with increased oversight and transparency. M wants to ensure that taxpayers' money is used effectively 1 and wants to see how the system can be opened up for more actors 2. M argues that the process is transparent and that the government is allocating more money to civil society than before. C considers the civil society model to be ingenious. C argues that the government is in practice moving work from civil society to Sida, which constitutes a nationalization 3. S argues that the government has reduced the ambitions for Swedish aid. S considers that civil society has become trapped. S argues that the government has not found any problems with current agreements. 4 S argues that the government has not given assurances that the aid will not be nationalized 4. 5 C argues that both civil society and the agency Sida have drawn hasty conclusions 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! Anna Lasses and Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro have both submitted a number of questions to me concerning the government's mandate to Sida to review the arrangement for the channeling of aid funds through strategic partner organizations.
Claims that the mandate to Sida implies a nationalization of aid and that the government wants to reduce the role of Swedish civil society or its added value in development cooperation are completely groundless. Civil society is an indispensable part of Swedish aid. In the Tidö agreement, we agree that the proportion of aid channeled through civil society shall increase.
In both the government's reform agenda for aid, Aid for a new era - Freedom, empowerment and sustainable growth, and in Strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society 2024, the government has expressed a new direction for Swedish aid mediated through civil society organizations.
On 29 February, the government therefore decided on a mandate for Sida to, among other things, analyze and submit proposals on alternative management of aid which today is channeled through the strategic partner organizations, SPO. The purpose of the mandate is to obtain a basis for a future decision on an arrangement where the funds in Strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society 2024 are fully or partially opened for applications from all aid organizations and not, as today, only allocated to the few organizations that are SPOs.
This would mean testing the conditions for a more open and inclusive application procedure in a process involving Swedish tax funds. The possibilities for transparency and external auditing of the further distribution and selection of local partners are currently limited by the fact that the system is not covered by the principle of public access. It is our assessment that a change could also lead to a reduction in the number of transaction links, which today can amount to as many as seven links.
Civil society acts independently and autonomously and is an important actor in the implementation of Swedish aid, not least when it comes to poverty reduction and democracy aid. Unfortunately, the democratic space where civil society organizations operate is under severe pressure in many parts of the world. This is an important reason why the government, in the new strategy Sweden's global development cooperation for human freedoms and rights, democracy and the rule of law principles 2024 - 2028, increases the focus on precisely supporting human rights and democracy defenders, free elections and independent journalism, compared to the previous strategy. Sweden also supports these actors in a large number of countries bilaterally, and through generous core funding to multilateral organizations. Overall, Sweden is one of the countries in the world that gives the largest share of our aid - 6.6 billion SEK during 2023, corresponding to 26 percent of Sida's total aid - to human freedoms and rights, democracy and the rule of law principles.
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the government has confidence that Sida carries out its activities in accordance with its mandate and requests to be referred to Sida in matters concerning their handling of contracts.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer.
In Sweden, we have chosen a model where a large part of the state aid is distributed through civil society organizations. It is brilliant in several ways. It takes advantage of the experience, knowledge, and above all the networks that civil society has globally. For example, the Swedish LGBTQI movement can support vulnerable LGBTQI people in authoritarian countries in a completely different way.
One increases Swedish citizens' engagement, participation and understanding of issues concerning aid and how the world looks.
One can offer a security and impartiality that an authority cannot provide – trusting an association is in many cases simpler than trusting a foreign authority.
As an organization, one can help smaller organizations in a completely different way with requirements for administration and reporting, as it often becomes a quite close relationship compared to what it becomes with a state agency in another country.
I am keeping the state apparatus in check, which should be of interest to a government that identifies as bourgeois.
Now, however, the government wants to move the work that is currently done by people in Swedish civil society to the state agency Sida - at least partially. Or how is it actually? I must say that the more I hear representatives for the government parties, and now also the minister, say that it has become a misunderstanding, the more confused I become. I hope that this discussion will bring order to this.
When one reads the instructions given to Sida on 29 February, it is crystal clear what mission Sida has been given. Civil society organizations obviously agree with me – not least the authority itself, given the report that arrived at the beginning of April.
In the instructions, the first point states that the authority shall report the following: "Economic consequences of a transfer of responsibility to the authority to, from 1 January 2025, manage the onward forwarding of support to civil society organizations that the strategic partner organizations (SPO) currently perform within the framework of Strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society 2024 (UD2024/01418). In addition, the report shall contain a well-founded description of the personnel and operational consequences of such a transfer of responsibility."
I absolutely believe that the intentions are the best. One wants to reduce the number of transaction links and increase traceability and transparency, all with the goal of increasing efficiency and results. The money is for and should, as much as possible, reach the recipients. In that, we are in complete agreement. But to say that it is not about a nationalization, against the background of the instructions that have been given in black and white, feels a bit strange. It states that responsibility and work tasks, at least partially, shall be transferred from the organizations to the state agency.
In light of this, I have a follow-up question: If now everyone – or at least very many outside the Government Offices' buildings, obviously including the agency Sida – has understood the instructions in this way, what has the minister done during the last two months to correct this?
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! There have undeniably been many turns with Swedish aid since Johan Forssell took office as Minister responsible for these matters. Aid has been cut, ambitions for Swedish aid in the world have been reduced, and the focus has shifted from democracy, poverty reduction, and human rights to rather how one can safeguard Swedish interests, trade, and entrepreneurship. In these rather large changes, Swedish civil society has been locked in the wardrobe without opportunities to provide proper input when these decisions have been made.
Johan Forssell has however given a statement in the chamber today, Madam Speaker, namely that the government's ambition is not to nationalize Swedish aid. In that case, I would like to know if we can get an assurance from the Minister that they will not proceed with those ambitions to nationalize Swedish aid, which would be a reassuring message to both me and Anna Lasses who have asked the question, but above all to Swedish civil society.
Madam Speaker! Regarding the principle of public access, I would like to remind the Minister that Sida administers a site called openaid.se. There, one can go in and follow all these projects, what money they have received, and how it has turned out. I would also like to quote from Sida's website regarding the principle of public access: "Sida is a state agency. All messages sent to or created and stored at a state agency become public documents according to the Freedom of the Press Act. The principle of public access also means that everyone has the right to access public documents. This means that if someone asks us to see a public document, we may have to release it."
Aid projects are covered by a great deal of controls and administration. There are piles of papers and folders that are saved for approximately ten years just so that Sida can perform these follow-up controls.
On the same theme of transparency and efficiency, Johan Forssell has claimed that in some cases, aid money is passed on through seven links. I would like to have concrete examples of which projects these are. Which projects is the Minister referring to?
I have myself worked in a number of aid projects. It works such that you have a strategic partner organization, and then you have a Swedish organization which in turn has a project with a local partner organization. It is therefore three levels, not seven. I would never, Madam Speaker, have engaged in an aid project that forwarded money through seven levels. I would very much like to receive concrete examples of which these projects are.
It could also be that the government does not have sufficient insight into how aid projects function. Therefore, it would have been wise to listen to civil society and their experience in the field, precisely in order to get a fair picture of how the aid functions. Instead, I think, hasty decisions have been made. They blame their agency, but in reality, it is the government that has given the agency this assignment.
This has had quite far-reaching consequences for civil society and not least for all those who receive Swedish aid today. I would actually like to assert that it is an incredible waste of tax money, Madam Speaker. In civil society, there is concern now that over 1,750 contracts are being terminated.
Madam Speaker! Every time Johan Forssell speaks about the future of Swedish aid, further questions are created. I have asked about some of them, Madam Speaker, but I would also like to receive answers as to whether the government has found any problems with legality, transparency, control, and cost-effectiveness in the current agreements with the strategic partner organizations. I still think that Johan Forssell needs to provide answers to that. Otherwise, it sounds, Madam Speaker, like a rather unfair disparagement of the work of Swedish civil society in the world. I would like to say that they do an incredibly important work, so I would very much like to receive an answer to that question.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! There were several questions.
I may repeat for the interpellants and for those watching this debate the very basis of the reform that we now want to implement. To begin with, one must remember one thing: We are a government that believes in a very strong civil society. It is something that we point out both in the government statement and in our Tidö Agreement.
We are a government that even increases the support channeled through Swedish civil society organizations compared to the previous government, which relied on decisions by the Centerpartiet. We are therefore allocating more money to aid to civil society organizations even though the aid budget as a whole is decreasing in that part. This says something: that we see the important role of Swedish civil society in this.
It also says something else, Madam Speaker, namely that we, as a major donor, also have a great responsibility to ensure that Swedish aid funds are always used as effectively as possible. We have a responsibility to ensure that Swedish taxpayers—the teachers, nurses, and police officers who have worked together on the 56 billion—can always feel secure that their money is used effectively and transparently and that there is a great openness in the system.
I am very familiar with Openaid. It was the previous alliance government that created that system because it was seen that there were major flaws in the previous Social Democratic government's transparency. To be honest, Social Democratic governments have probably never been particularly interested in having transparency in the system, but rather focused more on paying out as much money as possible. We reason completely differently.
In this part, however, one can note that there is a difference, and this was also pointed out by Sida in its response a few days ago. It is clear, an authority does work according to the principle of public access, but the SPOs do not today. It just becomes strange to claim otherwise.
There are also significantly greater opportunities for, for example, an external party – a citizen or, in that regard, an investigative journalist – to request information. It could be email correspondence or other information. It is a big difference.
Then Anna Lasses becomes confused about this. We have said early on, already in the reform agenda last year, that we want to review the system of forwarding. Then we gave Sida a mandate. We have a precise timetable for this that everyone can follow - it is completely transparent. This concerns the reporting that has arrived and that which will come on May 15 and then on June 30.
Possibly - I say possibly - Anna Lasses is confused because one in the Center Party themselves may have drawn somewhat too quick conclusions in the work, very early. Sometimes it can be good to see how things turn out before one draws altogether too drastic conclusions - a warm heart and a cold brain.
We have tasked Sida with reporting on what an alternative model could look like. We say that we want a system where more civil society organizations can apply directly. We want a system where we have greater competition. We want a system where we have greater openness, because we believe that it will favor our overall objective of ensuring that aid is always used as effectively as possible.
We will return to this issue. We do not give hasty announcements, but we have a clear process forward. When Sida has submitted its various parts, we will provide an announcement on how we intend to proceed from there.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! It may be that I have drawn too quick conclusions, but so has the entire civil society and apparently also the agency Sida, based on the report they have submitted.
Furthermore, some government representatives have stated that Sida may have misunderstood, even though I do not quite understand how one can misunderstand what is written. In that case, it is perhaps rather the instruction that is somewhat unclear, hence my previous question: Is it possibly the case that the government could clarify the instruction somewhat so that it is in accordance with the intention that the government had, which sounds very commendable?
One can have different opinions about this. In principle, I understand. This matter of openness and opening up for more is a good idea, and it should naturally be tested. I am saying absolutely nothing about that. On the other hand, when one does such a thing, one can consider whether one perhaps should have a form of transition process very clearly.
For example, one could let the agreements expire or at least provide a very clear timeframe so that there is time to conclude projects in a tidy way. This has not been done now, because what has de facto happened is that Sida has terminated a number of agreements, which has resulted in the SPOs - the organizations - also starting to terminate their agreements.
Take, for example, the organization We Effect, which, among other things, works with entrepreneurship, often within food and forestry, and often with activities that strengthen women's empowerment. These are goals that are all included in the government's prioritized areas. We Effect is not alone, but organization after organization bears witness to the same thing. Save the Children raised an example last week with a youth organization in Rwanda, and so on.
Therefore, the question is: Will the government provide a clarification that one can neatly terminate their agreements and that there is no need to have the panic that one has now?
In the instructions, even though I have only read out a small quote, there is nothing that contradicts that everything should be completed by January 1st next year. It is a huge change that is to happen super fast, and there stands nothing about a transition period for the agreements.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to get some concreteness. I asked a question as to whether we could get an assurance that the government does not have on its agenda to nationalize aid. We did not get that, so I asked the question again. I note that the Minister means that hasty conclusions have been drawn. I interpret this as an assurance that one will not nationalize aid. It would have been good, Madam Speaker, if such a clarification could come from Johan Forssell.
Swedish civil society is incredibly uneasy right now. It is not that agreements have not been terminated. Hundreds of thousands of people are affected by it at this moment. If it is the case that hasty conclusions have been drawn, it may be because the government has not given reassuring signals. It is clear that civil society must act based on the signals they receive from Sida. Anything else is unreasonable, I think, Madam Speaker.
One of the core missions of civil society is to promote democracy. I think it is an incredibly good core mission that they have had, and it has been very fortunate in times of increased polarization. But it is not only democracy and human rights that are benefited by civil society's engagement in the world around us, it is also good for the business sector.
I can state that Team Sweden, which is to promote exports and investments in Sweden, does not mention civil society at all, despite the business community saying that civil society is an incredibly important party to ensure that Swedish investments can be promoted.
Civil society has years of contacts, experiences, and collaborations that can later serve as an advantage for Swedish companies when they wish to establish themselves and thereby create conditions for trade and investments. These collaborations have also strengthened the image of Sweden, put Sweden on the map, and strengthened the view of Sweden as a humanitarian superpower.
Instead of continuing to work on creating conditions for not only democracy and human rights but also for entrepreneurship and the business sector, one must now focus on terminating agreements. Again: It is an incredible waste of our tax money, Madam Speaker, which Johan Forssell says he is very concerned about.
How does the Minister believe this affects the image of Sweden? My perception is that it affects the image of Sweden incredibly poorly, an image of Sweden that has already been weakened since this government took office.
I cannot emphasize enough how important civil society is, but the added value of Swedish civil society has been removed from the government's strategy. This added value has been noted by international partner organizations. They have expressed that Swedish civil society constitutes an added value for them as it creates a forum for exchange of experience, regional and national advocacy, efficiency resulting from long experience and knowledge, as well as well-developed networks. It has created a partnership that extends beyond the financial and which strengthens the long-term perspective in the partnerships.
Sida has itself stated that this added value can be lost if the aid is nationalized. We might be able to get an assurance from Johan Forssell that this will not happen.
Madam Speaker! It is obvious to me that the added value of Swedish civil society creates a robustness in relations with the outside world and a long-term perspective that can later provide conditions for the business sector to find ways to create investments in Sweden and promote exports. I would therefore like to hear: What is Johan Forssell's view on the added value of Swedish civil society in Sweden's future aid work?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Many different questions were asked, and I shall try to answer them in turn to the best of my ability.
The entire civil society is against this, says Anna Lasses. I do not know if I have seen any survey where all civil society organizations are included; I do not think perhaps one should be completely sure that everyone thinks that this is a bad idea.
I actually believe that there are quite a few who think it is good that we are now taking the initiative to specifically open the application process so that not only a few organizations will be able to apply for funds directly from Sida but that there can be more. I believe there are many more aid organizations that can be involved and contribute and who have proposals and do important work - or rather, I know that is the case. They may not always be heard in the debate, but they certainly are there.
I experience that we have a very good dialogue with Sida; I do not experience that there are any ambiguities regarding what we are to achieve together. I have now pointed out several times that this is a unified and very transparent process. It was initiated already with the reform agenda last year and the new strategy, which we directly stated would apply for one year. We now also have a timetable that everyone can follow.
Then it is well known that it is normal in aid that agreements are not extended. We do not have unlimited strategies. It is not the case that they run for all time. Perhaps Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro should listen extra carefully right now, because even under the Social Democratic government, the strategies were time-limited. They apply for a number of years, and then they cease to apply. Then new decisions must be made, and then there can be changes in which countries one operates in, which organizations one works in, or which priorities one has. Do not come and claim that this would be something new or unique! This is how it has always functioned in Swedish aid policy.
It is very good that one can make new priorities – that one can change so that things do not just continue in a routine manner, year after year, decade after decade, without us always asking ourselves how we can achieve the best results for the 56 billion that Swedish taxpayers will spend on Swedish aid this year.
Possibly it is the case that many organizations are concerned by the description that precisely the aid should be nationalized. It is a strange description - does it mean that requirements on civil society organizations would imply a nationalization? Is it a nationalization that guidelines and instructions are issued and that one must submit audit reports?
I want to bring the question back to what is perhaps the basis of this: These are funds that Swedish taxpayers have worked to put together. It is about teachers, nurses and police officers. It is clear that these are not funds that we just throw away without requirements for prioritization or transparency and oversight.
If the Social Democrats want to call it a nationalization, they can do that, but I think these are important parts of an aid system based on transparency, traceability, and efficiency where we should try to avoid mediation occurring through many intermediaries. I also think it is important, for example, that investigative journalists can critically examine this, just as they can examine, for example, my emails or, for that part, documents at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It is an important cornerstone in a liberal democracy.
We believe in civil society's immensely important role, and I am convinced that there are many important things that only civil society can perform in this. I therefore still want to conclude by repeating that we as a government – even though we do not want to play in that league where one competes over exactly how much money one puts into aid but rather want to look at the results and what we achieve – actually allocate more money to aid to civil society organizations than the previous government did.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! Civil society has a crucial role for aid to function properly, both here in Sweden and in the recipient country. It still sounds like we agree on exactly this.
As I said in my previous post, it is good to open up for several; I am saying absolutely nothing about that. What I question is not that the agreements are not being extended, but that they must be terminated with such short notice. We are talking about less than a year's notice, and that causes very many projects to simply vanish. It is therefore the lead time it is about, and I still have not received an answer to the question of whether the government could possibly be clear on just this. But that is obviously not what they want to be.
It can be scrutinized - yes, absolutely. I understand that. Then it is, just as the minister said, very difficult in that the principle of public access actually does not cover organizations in the same way and probably should not do so either. However, it works perfectly well to evaluate in another way.
A transparent process - no, it certainly has not been that. And what is meant by nationalization is that tasks that are currently performed by civil society are moved to the agency Sida. That is at least the picture one gets when reading the instructions to Sida. If that is incorrect, I think the government should clarify it.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for this interpellation debate, Johan Forssell!
I must however state that we have not received an answer on whether the government can assure civil society that the aid will not be nationalized. They wrap this in a lot of other terms and statements, and I think that is regrettable. It indicates that civil society cannot feel reassured by the government's reform agenda.
I would also like to talk a bit about this issue of transparency and the different links, because I have also not received an answer as to which projects the Minister refers to when he talks about aid money that has been passed on through seven links. As far as I know, there are no projects where the money has been passed on through six or seven links, but the Minister has a chance to provide examples of this. It is, in fact, quite serious if so occurs, because it clearly reduces transparency. I believe that all parliamentary parties want aid that is transparent and effective and reaches the local level.
I can also only state that no one is criticizing this that the proportion of civil society organizations that can apply for aid funds is being increased, Johan Forssell. What we are criticizing is that it was done very quickly and without any consequence analysis whatsoever, which has led to 1,750 agreements being terminated. That is, like, the reality. It may be that the government wants to make that reprioritization, but then it must be done with a proper consequence analysis. Everything else is actually irresponsible. I must also point out that this has led to projects in, for example, Ukraine being shut down, which is serious in the situation that the country is currently in, Madam Speaker.
I must actually emphasize that I think one hears an incredible amount of ignorance from the rostrum regarding how aid projects work. The Minister falls back to talking about volume instead of talking about what we are here to talk about today, namely civil society's role in Sweden's future aid work. On those questions, Johan Forssell has no answers, Madam Speaker, and it is regrettable—not only for the aid work but above all for all the people affected around the world.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! We should perhaps just note one thing: Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro says that 1,750 contracts have been terminated, but that is not the case. They have not been terminated, but Sida has notified that they are to be terminated at the turn of the year. That is still an incredible difference.
If one is now standing and claiming that others are ignorant, perhaps it is good to actually look through what Sida has said and not; it can indeed facilitate such a debate. We also have a responsibility. If one is now concerned that civil society organizations are precisely worried, we should stick to the facts and not fuel the fire with completely incorrect descriptions. It is actually central in this.
We have a transparent process in this. We are not finished, I want to emphasize, but we are only at the beginning of it. We have a timeline that is running. It began already last year with the reform agenda. We have described it carefully externally so that everyone can follow it, precisely in order to be transparent.
We will present more on how we intend to proceed with this once we have received all the documents from Sida. I do not intend to stand here and predict the events in advance; I do not think it would be a truly serious way to approach the issue.
I naturally understand that there are many questions and that many are worried, but one must remember that a government must be able to make changes. A government must be able to make other priorities. Strategies expire – that is how it has always been in Swedish aid, and that is how it will continue to be.
We have the perspective that we must ensure that the funds we have are always used in the most efficient way, see how we can open up the system for more actors and, not least, see how we can achieve greater transparency and openness in this important area.
I thank Anna Lasses and Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro for the interpellations.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.