Sweden's international aid - follow-up, evaluation and reporting

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 3, which deals with the Swedish National Audit Office's report on Sweden's international aid - follow-up, evaluation and reporting. The report highlights important issues on how the government's and Sida's work with following up and reporting the results of the aid can be improved. This is an important discussion, because effective and well-functioning aid is crucial both for those abroad who receive the support and for maintaining the trust here at home among the taxpayers who pay for the aid.

There are no reservations in the consideration, neither from us Social Democrats nor from any others. The proposal is that the letter shall be added to the records.

There are, however, four specific statements. The Social Democrats have submitted one of them. I intend to say something about our position based on that and something slightly broader about aid. In a few weeks, we will have a budget debate on aid. It will therefore certainly be revisited.

For us Social Democrats, the starting point is clear: Sweden's aid shall be effective, transparent, results-oriented, and purposeful. This is not in opposition to the fact that it should also be generous and that Sweden should stick to the one percent level that we have had as a goal for over 50 years.

The National Audit Office's report points out important areas that can be improved. The government's reporting to the Riksdag needs to become more transparent and have a clearer connection to the results of the aid. Follow-up and analysis are crucial to ensure that the aid is used in the right way.

But the solution to this is not to reduce the scope of aid or to erode its purpose. We are now seeing a development where Sweden is rapidly moving away from both the one percent goal and the UN's recommendation to allocate at least 0.7 percent of GNI to aid. It is very worrying.

It is also concerning that Sweden is now deliberately violating the OECD-DAC guidelines for what may be classified as aid. When aid funds are used, in violation of OECD-DAC rules, for migration policy reforms or additional integration costs in Sweden, both the credibility of the aid and its fundamental purpose—to help the most vulnerable—are undermined.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's aid has been an example internationally. We have been a leading voice for human rights, poverty reduction, and global solidarity. But when the government now, for example, turns its gaze away from global challenges and terminates bilateral cooperation with some of the world's most vulnerable countries, for example South Sudan and Burkina Faso, we send a signal that we no longer take our global responsibility seriously.

South Sudan is one of the world's most vulnerable countries. There, people struggle every day to survive conflicts and humanitarian crises. Withdrawing support there is not only a betrayal of these people; it is also a strategic mistake for Sweden as a country.

At the same time, we see that the government chooses to focus aid on short-term, narrow Swedish self-interests rather than on an enlightened self-interest and long-term global solutions. It is not the right way forward. Strong, well-targeted, and effective aid is about creating stability and security in the world and development in all the world's countries. It also, of course, in turn strengthens development and security here in Sweden. That is also a Swedish self-interest.

We Social Democrats stand for aid that is both generous and well-executed. We have always emphasized the importance of efficiency and results and welcome audits such as the one the National Audit Office has conducted. But we will never accept that efficiency is used as a pretext to reduce aid or change its fundamental direction.

When the government now erodes the level and purpose of aid, they are breaking international commitments. They are also betraying what we consider Sweden's long-standing role: to try to be something more than just one of many other countries. It is not wrong to try to be a humanitarian superpower. Sweden has always been a country that has strived to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that Sweden's aid is an investment in a safer and more stable world. To reduce that aid is to reduce Sweden's opportunities to contribute to a better future, both for people living in poverty and for ourselves.

We Social Democrats stand firm that Sweden shall adhere to the one percent level in aid, follow international guidelines and recommendations, follow the OECD-DAC framework for what may be counted as aid, and continue to be a pioneer and a strong voice for global justice and solidarity and effective aid.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has produced a report on the follow-up and evaluation as well as reporting on Sweden's international aid.

Aid is a central part of Sweden's foreign policy and our commitment to global justice, sustainable development, and human rights. The goal of aid is to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and under oppression. Therefore, it is very important that aid is used effectively and that we can measure and follow up on its results.

This debate concerns the report that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has prepared regarding the memorandum that the government has presented on the subject. It contains their assessment of the observations and recommendations that the Swedish National Audit Office has stated in the report. It may sound a bit convoluted and bureaucratic. That is exactly what it is. Such is also the reporting of results of Swedish aid.

The Riksdag has repeatedly over several years pointed out that the reporting of aid results that we receive through the budget bill is not sufficient. We have repeatedly requested that the government become better at reporting on the results of the aid and have also requested a clearer connection between goals, actions, results, and the government's appropriations. Therefore, we welcome that the Swedish National Audit Office has conducted this audit.

The Swedish National Audit Office's overall assessment is that the government's and Sida's follow-up and evaluation of the aid's results is effectively designed in some parts, but that, based on the government's reporting to the Riksdag, it is difficult to assess the aid's results in relation to the overall goal of the aid. It is also difficult to see to what extent the results contribute to the government's design of the aid.

It is however worth noting that Swedish aid is in a major process of change, based on predictable grants for aid, decoupled from bni, and in the reform agenda for aid. The reform agenda entered into force only three months before the Riksrevisionen's report was presented.

In the reform agenda, it is described that Swedish aid shall be given with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. It also states that quality and clearer reporting of the results is central. This is very welcome and good for both the recipients and our taxpayers. It is a pure question of legitimacy towards them. Both parties shall be able to expect that the aid is used in the way that most effectively yields good results.

Madam Speaker! It appears from the communication to the Riksdag that the government shall review the guidelines for the design of strategies within Swedish development cooperation, in order to develop goal and result management. This, I believe, is crucial for the reporting of results. Without clear goals, we cannot, in fact, know when we have actually achieved them.

The government is also reducing the number of strategies for aid, which makes the management of the aid clearer. It also makes the result collection somewhat less complex.

For the Riksdag and not least for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is very positive that the government has initiated work to simplify, improve and clarify the government's reporting of results to the Riksdag. I look forward very much to a better reporting of results regarding aid in the future.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of ambitious work within the field of aid. It is fundamentally good that we have high ambitions, which we shall also continue to have. There is no doubt about that. But it is also absolutely crucial that we constantly dare to scrutinize our own work and what we achieve with our aid.

This is a large policy area with an extensive budget. Therefore, it must be reviewed continuously. Nothing is so good that it cannot be improved. It is against that background that we are to see the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Sweden's international aid - follow-up, evaluation and reporting.

We need to have deep knowledge, ongoing follow-up and evaluation, and ensure that the aid is designed in a purposeful way. That is the only way we can know that we are effective and that we reach the goals we have set.

The review looks partly at how the government works, and partly at how Sida as an agency works with the issues. The review also looks at how the work of EBA, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, is taken into account. In the background is that the Swedish Riksdag has repeatedly called for better and more efficient follow-up and evaluation of Swedish aid. The discussion is, in other words, not new but has been with us for a long time.

Madam Speaker! What does this review then say? The overall assessment is that the government's and Sida's follow-up and evaluation of the aid is effectively designed in some parts, but note the words "in some parts." There are, therefore, clear deficiencies.

The Swedish National Audit Office shows that Sida and EBA contribute a large amount of information regarding the results to the government. The Swedish National Audit Office notes, however, in its review, that it is still or in any case has been difficult to assess the results of the aid in relation to the overall goal of the aid and that it is unclear to what extent the results contribute to the design of the aid.

The Swedish National Audit Office states that the identified deficiencies lead to the Swedish Parliament not receiving sufficient insight into the results of the aid, and that the resources allocated to monitoring and evaluation risk being used inefficiently. This is, of course, not good enough.

Madam Speaker! When one reads the National Audit Office's report, one is struck by the fact that it repeatedly returns to the words unclear and ambiguous. These are two words that I hope none of us want to see in such an important area. As taxpayers, we also do not want to see areas where large sums of money and large budget appropriations go to be characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity. It is a failing grade for the previous aid policy.

A contributing cause to these ambiguities is how the aid has been built up. The aid has been governed by over 60 strategies that span many countries, thematic areas, and different types of activities. In addition to that, there have been a number of different goals for each strategy.

This amounts to a very large number of parameters which in themselves make the area very difficult to oversee and thus also difficult to follow up and evaluate. With so many strategies and so many goals, it has been difficult for natural reasons to prioritize and to channel resources in the best way, which has made it difficult to steer and make course corrections when evaluations have shown a need for changes. When everything is important and everything is prioritized, it works against the ability to achieve the best possible results.

Madam Speaker! In this context, it is also important to emphasize that the Swedish National Audit Office's audit concerns the period up to 2023, when the new aid agenda was introduced. After that, as we all know, fundamental changes have occurred in Swedish aid policy.

The government has begun a major reorganization of the policy, and we are now in the middle of it. This is positive, and it will make Swedish aid better and more efficient. This also means that evaluation and follow-up, and the opportunities to utilize the results, will be improved.

The Reform Agenda Aid for a New Era signifies a new start for Swedish aid policy. One of the major changes concerns significantly reducing the number of strategies and goals that govern the policy. It will make it easier to oversee and understand the aid policy. It will become easier to steer it, implement it, achieve results, and evaluate it. The new agenda means that we have the capacity and the courage to prioritize. It strengthens the credibility of Swedish aid and facilitates good goal fulfillment.

Aid policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is important that there is a strong acceptance of Swedish aid here at home and that the aid reaches where we want it to reach and that it makes a difference in reality for people in other parts of the world. In that case, we need to manage the task of following up on the results, evaluating the effects, and implementing ongoing changes to calibrate the aid to achieve the best possible results. To reform the policy is therefore correct policy and a correct prioritization.

The National Audit Office's report strengthens this insight and underlines the importance of daring and having the strength to carry out reforms. There is therefore reason to extend a thank you to the National Audit Office for its good work and to unite ourselves around a continued change and development of the policy in order to achieve the best possible results with Swedish aid.

Madam Speaker! The aid shall reach its goals as far as possible. In the long run, we cannot afford ambiguities or uncertainties regarding whether we reach our goals or whether we can protect and safeguard Swedish interests within the aid policy.

The Swedish interests, which were mentioned somewhat casually here earlier, are about prioritizing things such as strengthening respect for human rights, strengthening women's rights, strengthening LGBTQ people's rights, and contributing to increased freedom, democracy, and functioning states of law. It is about strengthening people's opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty, creating sustainable growth, and contributing to the continuation of the green transition.

In short, the aid is about big issues, and we cannot chase all the balls at once. We must be focused on results and efficiency and on achieving the best possible impact for every Swedish tax krona spent on aid.

Madam Speaker! This policy is being realized step by step. That is good. It strengthens Sweden, it strengthens the aid, and it strengthens the credibility. The words unclear and vague shall not appear in future reports from the Swedish National Audit Office to the extent that they do in this report.

In conclusion, I also want to say a few words about what the Swedish National Audit Office writes about EBA, that is, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis. The recommendations that EBA submits to the government are fundamentally very wise. It is important that EBA's work and their input on Swedish aid policy are taken into full account. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that this has not been done. We think that is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity. It is an opportunity that we shall take advantage of. It will make the aid even better, more efficient, and more accurate.

Now we move forward. We turn the page and leave the old aid policy behind. Based on the new aid agenda, we strengthen the aid, the follow-up, and the evaluation.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

The Chairman mentioned several times that ambiguities and lack of clarity are things that should be avoided, and I can certainly agree with that. But I become a bit confounded when we see that more and more aid money is being used for costs that are not aid. That hardly contributes to the fulfillment of the aid's objectives. For example, 893 million goes to costs for integration. These are funds taken from the aid but which may not be counted as aid.

Do the Moderates and the member not agree that we should follow the framework for how aid money may be used, that is, the OECD-DAC framework which we have actually stood behind?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

One can have slightly different views on how to live up to the regulatory framework. We shall, of course, follow the regulations we have backed as far as is possible. But at the same time, we must remember that OECD-DAC is not something set in stone; it is not a religion. It is not an overarching ideology that should govern which decisions the government or the Riksdag make.

We must have an accurate and results-oriented aid policy that lives up to and reaches the goals we have and that strengthens Swedish interests in the world. If some of the money is used to do things that help here at home, I see no problem with that in principle. I think it is a wise prioritization.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. But is it not so, member, that the money we have allocated for aid is to go precisely to aid and to helping poor people out in the world and not to cover costs here in Sweden? I think it is a deception when one uses aid funds in such a way.

Since then, you from the government's side have announced a new strategy on return, a migration strategy for 3 billion kronor, where there are also a lot of ambiguities and uncertainties. It is also something that aid may not be used for, i.e., paying people to return to their home countries. The only time aid may be used for return is when it concerns leaving a developing country and heading to another. But it may not be used when it concerns returning from Sweden to one's motherland.

In the strategy, it is also unclear how the money is to be used. I think it is a huge problem that large amounts of aid money are used for things that are not aid.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only state that we have different views on this. For us, it is important that Sweden has an effective and goal-oriented aid that achieves good results. We have that. The aid in this country is ambitious and generous, and it will continue to be so.

Since it is entirely natural that different priorities can be made within the very large budget framework that exists for this area. We assess that the priorities the government makes are wise.

The second strategy that the member of Parliament raises lies partly outside of this issue, but I can state that even there it is wise policy to focus on managing integration in Sweden, that we have control over who is living in the country and to have a strict migration policy.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Saweståhl, for the presentation and the answers to the questions! The member speaks clearly and distinctly about the fact that the aid must never be unclear or ambiguous. None of us want that. Still, I must say that quite a few of us think it is more unclear and ambiguous than ever regarding the government's reform agenda, where there are more questions than answers.

The Speaker says that there must be an acceptance of Swedish aid. I agree with that too. But despite this, the government has abolished the so-called information ban, which exists precisely so that aid organizations can inform about their work and about the work for global justice all around Sweden. How does that actually square with the acceptance that one says one wants and the transparency that the government so often talks about?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Alm Ericson, for those questions!

In the new aid agenda and the reorganization of the policy that this government is now carrying out, with broad support in the Swedish Riksdag - and also outside the Swedish Riksdag, I am convinced - it is clear that changes will occur. It is clear that in a transitional phase one may possibly experience that there are ambiguities. But I and we are convinced that we will be much clearer and more distinct. These words shall not occur in Swedish aid in the future, that is the idea.

Let me raise the specific question regarding the information support. Unfortunately, it has been perceived as funds that organizations have used in a way that can give the impression that money is leaking out of the aid instead of going to people in need or reaching the goals we have.

I am convinced that we can create transparency and achieve good oversight and good acceptance for Swedish aid through general public opinion formation through news media and other means, where we can demonstrate what we do and what we achieve. It is rarely good when people scrutinize themselves. That is where part of the answer to the question lies.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite follow the logic there, that the less one can talk about and inform about it, the greater the acceptance becomes. I believe it is quite the opposite.

I would also like to ask another question. In the government's response, it is stated that it is not only the goal of the aid, to lift people out of poverty and oppression, that shall apply, but also other priorities. The Member had many examples of good Swedish interests out in the world. But not least against the background of the statements that have been made regarding migration policy, there is reason to believe that it is actually other so-called Swedish interests that will prevail.

How does the member think regarding deviating from the goal of the aid and involving other interests - how is that supposed to contribute to increasing transparency and efficiency?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a generous and extensive aid, and there is no doubt that we will continue to have it. There is room to engage in information and to anchor and create acceptance for Swedish aid.

But it is and remains an important priority that aid does not exist in a vacuum but also concerns ensuring our Swedish interests. I listed quite a few of them. It is about strengthening human rights, strengthening democracy and strengthening people's right to live open lives in freedom. It is about women's rights. It is about sexual and reproductive health and about much more that are our genuine interests and our genuine priorities, and I believe furthermore that everyone here agrees on them. This is what we are now focusing on. Then it will become clearer, sharper and better. We will achieve greater and better results.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the member from the Moderaterna about a false contradiction that I am quite tired of. It concerns the assumption that something becomes more efficient because it becomes smaller. I do not understand that. I think it is an anti-intellectual way to approach whatever problem it may be.

Here I have a piece of paper in A4 format with text on it. Now I want to make the paper more efficient. Therefore, I tear off a corner. Did it become more efficient now? No, it just became smaller. That was all that happened, nothing more.

It is this rhetoric that Fredrik Saweståhl, Benjamin Dousa and foreign ministers on an assembly line use to justify that they want to make the aid smaller.

Be honest! Say that you don't think we can afford to use 1 percent of our GNP to fight poverty and help vulnerable people in the world. Say that you think it is too generous and that you want it to be less. It is at least more honest than just saying: Look here, it became more efficient, because we removed 6 billion and will remove 3 billion more in a few years!

In what way does anything, whatever it may be, become more efficient by becoming smaller? That is what I ask the Moderate Party's representative.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Thorell, for an engaged question! I must say that it was a creative use of the little props available in this chamber.

If we are to continue with the paper exercise, I can say that one way to increase efficiency is to print on both sides of the paper. Then the paper has not become less, but one gets more on the paper. That is what we do here in the Riksdag, because we are thinking about the environment.

One can naturally argue that there is a false contradiction in saying that less becomes more efficient. But it doesn't have to, rather it is about how we actually use the money on the ground and how one channels them in the organizations. It is about that we should not have 60 strategies and several hundred goals but focus on certain specific things and do them really well. Then we strengthen our interests, and we strengthen the freedom for people in other parts of the world and lift them out of poverty. That is our goal.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! That is our goal too. We agree on the goals of the aid. We agree that it should be effective. We agree that every tax krona should be used in the best possible way. We agree that the needs in the world are crying and growing. We agree that rights should be defended in the whole world. We agree that the aid should be as effective as it possibly can be. There is no contradiction there.

But the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats are doing everything they can to paint a contradiction that does not exist. The contradiction that exists in this chamber, in Swedish politics, is that two parties, the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, do not think we should be as generous as the other six parties think.

We want to allocate one percent of our common prosperity to poverty reduction and to help vulnerable people in the world. We have agreed on this in this chamber for over 50 years, across party lines.

Then the Moderaterna sit in the same boat as the Sverigedemokraterna, who see it as their task to remove foreign dangerous influence and cultural dangers for the Swedish people and who want to get rid of international aid, halve it.

You are putting yourselves in the same boat as them. Suddenly, the Moderaterna also think the one percent goal is too generous. Be honest about what you think and argue from that! I respect that you change your minds. That is something one can do. It is okay. You don't need to at least pretend that you think something other than what you think.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Thorell, for another passionate speech! I can only state that it is clear that we have different views on how much money we should spend on this area. But I also want to remind the Member that you in last year's Social Democratic budget also cut the aid framework. It is therefore not unknown to other parties in the Swedish Riksdag to think that one should hold back in this area at different occasions and in different times.

For us, it is extremely important that we prioritize correctly, that we have the right objectives and that we achieve the right effects and get the most bang for the buck, so to speak.

Since then, the historiography is a bit strange. I have been involved with the Moderaterna since the early 90s and can say that it is not a novelty that the Moderaterna think that Swedish aid perhaps could have been reformed earlier and perhaps also could have had a smaller budget framework earlier.

Now we stand for this line, and we are pushing it through. It means that we continue to have one of the world's most generous aid programs, which makes a big difference for people. It is that and that we prioritize the right things that is the most important. It is about strengthening democracy, freedom, and human rights. It is about those types of values, which are the cores of politics in this country.

I am proud of the policy that our government is pursuing together with our support party.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I and the Left Party welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Sweden's international aid and agree on the importance of a clearer accounting and reporting to the Riksdag, especially regarding the long-term effects of the aid. It is naturally extremely important that the aid is used in the right way and for what it was intended. But I want to strongly emphasize that Swedish aid has for a long time been seen as an example globally and received very good grades in international comparisons, for example in the OECD's review.

It is worrying against that background that the current government is trying to give a different picture of the aid. One speaks of the aid not having been sufficiently effective and well-functioning. Even that which works well can, of course, be improved, but that the aid has functioned poorly is actually not true. We should, on the contrary, be proud of our international aid. It is an aid that the government is now, at a rapid pace, in the process of changing and worsening.

The Riksdag's overarching goal for aid is to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. We are therefore concerned that the government, in the reform agenda, to an all too great extent emphasizes the importance of aid benefiting Swedish interests, such as trade and business. I want to emphasize that aid should primarily benefit the recipient and not the donor, that is, poor and oppressed people and not Swedish companies and Swedish business.

The government says it wants to increase transparency, efficiency, and quality regarding aid, but this is poorly consistent with the fact that the government has already previously abolished the information support to civil society organizations. It was a support that was largely used to precisely scrutinize and spread knowledge about Swedish aid. In practice, this means a direct decommissioning of a long series of information channels, which in turn reduces the transparency and quality regarding Swedish aid. With a reduced information support, the possibility to scrutinize what Swedish aid money is used for also becomes smaller. The possibility for a broad and popular debate on aid is restricted. This is also something that the OECD takes up in its evaluation.

It also does not contribute to increased goal fulfillment when the aid is obviously used completely incorrectly, for things that may not be counted as aid. More and more aid money is used for costs that do not belong to aid, such as the support of 893 million kronor that goes to domestic costs for the integration of Ukrainian refugees. These are funds taken from the aid even though it explicitly contradicts the OECD-DAC rules for what may be counted as aid.

I have nothing against supporting Ukrainian refugees, on the contrary. But the funds for this should not be taken from aid, as it obviously cannot be counted as aid. Sweden will, of course, follow the agreements that apply to how aid money may be used.

The Swedish Migration Agency receives a large sum from aid and thus becomes one of the largest aid recipients. The Government has also announced a new strategy with 3 billion from aid to fund returns without being clear about what type of return costs can be financed with international aid.

According to the OECD-DAC framework, only voluntary, safe, and dignified return of refugees from one developing country to another can be considered development assistance. Repatriation from Sweden can never, ever be financed with any form of development aid.

That more and more aid is used to fund things that are not aid does not contribute to the goals of reduced poverty and reduced oppression. Instead, we see how the government lets the world's poor pay for expensive migration policy reforms.

That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and are further reducing aid at a time when extreme poverty is increasing and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who have it hardest in the world.

It is also deeply worrying that the government leaves out four strategies regarding some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world – Cambodia, Mali, South Sudan, and Burkina Faso. This does not contribute either to the goal of creating conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. There are also no guarantees that fewer strategies contribute to increasing transparency, efficiency, and quality regarding Swedish aid.

Vänsterpartiet stands up for generous aid. We guard the one percent goal regarding aid and also allocate funds in our shadow budget for this. We consider that aid should naturally follow the rules and guidelines for how aid may be used. We stand up for democracy, human rights and support for the world's poor and vulnerable.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Given how popular I was, I feel that I have to pay back in the popularity contest here in the chamber today.

I have a question for the member regarding the fact that the member made it sound as if it would be problematic for aid to be combined with trade.

This is a generally known principle: If we can achieve growth, if we can get the cake to grow, we will lift more people out of poverty. That is why there are fewer poor people today than there were 50 years ago.

We mean that it is a wise prioritization to combine aid with trade. If we strengthen growth in the developing countries and trade with the developing countries, the developing countries and the people who live there will come into a better situation. There will then be more resources in those countries for education, for infrastructure, for green transition - for all the things that we think are important.

We should reasonably be able to agree in Sweden's Riksdag that it is a wise priority to increase trade with developing countries and also combine aid with trade, because then the cake becomes larger and more people are lifted out of poverty. Does the member not agree with that?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! I have absolutely nothing against trade, but trade and aid are not the same thing. There is a very large risk if one, so to speak, favors Swedish companies so that they should invest in these developing countries. They might then, in the first instance, not invest in the poorest countries because it is simply not possible to do so.

Aid should primarily benefit the development of poor people. One must start from the recipient, the one who receives the aid. One must not start from the one who gives the aid. That is what is done in this strategy. It looks primarily at Swedish interests. It comes before the one who is to receive the aid – before the recipient, so to speak. It is a major problem.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! It is good that we can be somewhat in agreement that trade is not bad, in any case. It is a pleasant development that the Left Party thinks so these days.

I still want to emphasize that if we can combine aid with the goals that exist there with the effects we get from the Swedish aid and also trade more with these countries, it benefits those countries. It is clear that it also benefits Swedish companies, but it primarily benefits the people who live and reside in those countries who are given an opportunity for a better life. One plus one actually becomes three and not two.

Earlier, a number of countries were mentioned that we no longer have aid cooperation with. Among those listed were some of the world's most bizarre military dictatorships, with Mali and Burkina Faso at the forefront. I actually do not think it is reasonable that we support Mali's junta given the terrorism they are responsible for, their cooperation with Russia, their anti-Ukraine policy, and so on.

I think it is quite wise that we prioritize away cooperation with that type of countries, in the same way as it was wise that we withdrew cooperation with Georgian authorities after the election fraud in Georgia. I believe that we must have those types of priorities with us, otherwise we will only fail time and again.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for further questions!

We have not supported the regimes and governments in these countries, but we have supported democracy fighters and organizations that have fought for women's rights, for example against female genital mutilation. In Cambodia, Diakonia has supported an organization that works for the rights of vulnerable workers. When we now withdraw that aid, these people become even more vulnerable, and those who cheer are, of course, the regime in Cambodia.

That is how it is. We have not supported the regimes, we have supported democracy and human rights, and we are critical that it is now being withdrawn.

It can be good to support trade if, for example, it benefits female entrepreneurs in Africa in developing their trade and production. It should not be that the Swedish interest comes first and is benefited, but it is those who receive aid who should be benefited. What is so worrying in the new strategy is that it looks as if it is the Swedish interests that are to be benefited before the recipient. We are worried that it will be in that way.

It also leans towards it becoming more tied aid, which we have known for a long time is much more expensive. It can be up to 30 percent more expensive with tied aid, which means that one is forced to trade for example from Sweden in order to receive aid. This is absolutely something that we should avoid.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! What is actually effective aid? It depends, of course, on what one wants to achieve with the aid. But if we start from the premise that it is about what we here in the Riksdag have once established, the purpose is clear: to create better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression.

How is this then done in an effective way? If you ask those who should know best, that is, those who in different ways work with aid, their voices are largely in agreement: Long-term and structural-change projects are most effective for reducing poverty and oppression in the long run. That is, roughly in the same way as change is achieved generally in society. Even the research agrees with this conclusion.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Swedish National Audit Office for a well-executed, interesting and important report that contains many good pieces of advice. A particularly important point that I want to highlight here, and which the Swedish National Audit Office points out, is that it is actually difficult to follow up on whether and how the Swedish aid is effective in the long term.

The observation comes at a time when the government is restructuring aid in a way that, at least as I see it, reasonably leads to the opposite. They want short projects with quick effects. They want to work where the low-hanging fruit is and the challenges are as small as possible. It should be as easy as possible. Above all, they are reducing the proportion of long-term development support in favor of acute humanitarian aid. It is the symptoms that are being treated and not the disease itself.

There is a fear among donor countries that money will end up in the wrong hands and that corrupt and anti-democratic forces will exploit the aid for their own benefit. It is a very reasonable fear. But at the same time, one must still consider whether it is not precisely what many corrupt countries do today by receiving a share of the acute humanitarian aid, which does not impose the same requirements as development aid and which, as previously stated, primarily goes to those who are fighting for democracy and not to the governments. Countries that mismanage and torment their population can thus still feel a sense of security in that the countries that contribute will provide emergency aid.

Then it is significantly more reasonable to use the money to create a difference in the long term, even if it requires significantly more resources and work in the short term to work in vulnerable areas where there is chaos or where the country's governments stand for everything except democracy and justice. It is not the governments we should support, but people.

Do not misunderstand me - it is obvious and reasonable to provide emergency aid, but imagine if we had instead invested a larger part in the long term, which would have prevented the emergency situation from arising in the first place. Therefore, a reasonable balance between development aid and humanitarian aid was needed.

Right now, the majority of donor countries seem to prioritize humanitarian aid in a way that creates a significant imbalance and lopsidedness. In that situation, the pioneering country Sweden should, of course, take the lead and advocate for preventive, long-term development aid.

What is good, however, is that the government agrees with the Swedish National Audit Office that the reporting and follow-up need to become significantly better and, above all, clearer and more transparent. In that way, we will hopefully be able to see within the coming years, perhaps the decade, how inefficient, expensive, and short-sighted it is to focus specifically on the short-term instead of the long-term.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child celebrates 35 years today. Just a moment ago, there was an event here in the house organized by our own network, the UN network, and Unicef, where Unicef, among other things, presented the report that is presented every two years. The report focuses this year on children's situation in 2050, which is quite long-term and very wise. I think everyone should read the report, because it concerns to the highest degree how one should think about aid moving forward. There is still time for long-term investments in equality, education, jobs, climate, and democracy - things that we know lead to creating better living conditions in a sustainable way for people living in poverty and oppression.

What is effective aid, ultimately? Yes, it is aid that provides long-term and sustainable positive development for people. It is also one of our most important tools for increasing safety and security in the world, which also means greater safety and security in Sweden.

I also want to comment on the debate that took place here earlier between the gentlemen from the Socialdemokraterna and Moderaterna, where a piece of paper was used as an analogy: If you have a whole piece of paper and tear it, it becomes smaller, but if you use both sides of the paper, you can fit more.

It would have been cool if the government, in the situation we have in the world today, where the need for support is increasing, had maintained the one percent goal and the framework and instead streamlined it in a way so that you could fit in twice as much. That, my friends, would have been good leadership!

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It may seem that there is a great consensus between the Swedish National Audit Office, the government, and the parties in the Riksdag: aid must be effective, and the possibility of following up on the results of the aid against the goal of contributing to better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression needs to be improved. The Green Party naturally also thinks this, and we therefore welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's report.

Let us also be reminded for a short moment that Swedish aid before the Tidö government has been classified as one of the world's best when it comes to transparency, efficiency, and goal achievement. There are many international surveys and measurements that show this; among other things, Sweden receives top marks from the OECD.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes in its review that, based on the government's reporting to the Riksdag, it is difficult to assess the results of the aid in relation to the overall goal. They also note that it is unclear to what extent the results contribute to the government's design of the aid; i.e., how much is learned for the future.

The Government argues that the results achieved are one of several assessment bases for the design of the aid. It points out that other factors need to be considered, for example the local needs in the recipient countries, global changes and precisely strategic Swedish interests.

Despite the government's great focus on transparency, results, and efficiency, one does not therefore share the Swedish National Audit Office's view that the results of aid should to a greater extent be shaped from an analysis of the results achieved against the goal of reducing poverty and oppression. Instead, it is desired that short-term Swedish political interests should prevail. This is well illustrated by the government's reform agenda. Where previously all policy areas, through Agenda 2030, were required to contribute to global sustainable development, the aid shall now instead contribute to other policy areas, for example trade, migration, and growth. This is an approach that affects people all over the world, who receive less access to poverty reduction and humanitarian measures.

Swedish aid has long succeeded in reaching the world's most vulnerable people. This means that we have been able to help provide women and children with better life conditions and chances of survival and have been involved in building hope for the future in a reality that for far too many is far too dark.

I am proud of the difference our aid has been able to make historically, but I am very concerned about how the development looks today after the shift that the government calls the reform agenda. The effects of this shift are clearly seen, among other things, in the government's focus on migration policy within the aid.

Migrationsverket is now one of the largest recipients of Swedish aid. In a situation where developments in the world are heading in the wrong direction and democracy in several places is in turmoil while women's rights are being rolled back, it is completely incomprehensible how our aid money is largely going to a Swedish agency.

Some of the funds allocated to the Swedish Migration Agency also fall completely outside the definition of aid, for example 893 million in integration costs taken from the aid, even though it is not aid-eligible according to OECD-DAC. Other parts disregard the purpose and the precautionary principles that are built into the DAC directives regarding domestic refugee costs.

In October, the Tidösamarbetet also presented its strategy for Sweden's global development cooperation regarding migration, return, and voluntary return, with the clear aim of reducing asylum migration to Sweden. The strategy, which is paid directly from the aid budget, amounts to a total of 3 billion kronor. It violates the rules for aid, and the influence of the Sverigedemokrater is evident. That more aid funds are channeled out of what can be counted as aid obviously does not contribute to the fulfillment of the goals of reduced poverty and reduced oppression. Instead of increased efficiency of the aid funds, we see rather that the government lets the world's poor pay for expensive migration policy reforms that in no way make the world better.

Madam Speaker! The Government has also announced that the number of bilateral cooperation countries shall be reduced to 30. However, the Government has not presented how the trade-offs shall be made to achieve this reduction. Nor have we been provided with any impact assessment for the phase-outs that have already been announced.

In 2024, for example, the development support to South Sudan will be concluded. It is a country that sits at the bottom of the UN's Human Development Index. The development aid to South Sudan has gone from 434 million kronor to 0 kronor in two years. This rapid decommissioning is being carried out despite the fact that the aid makes a big difference on the ground, despite the fact that there are no other countries stepping in when Sweden leaves the country, and despite the fact that the country is in a sensitive situation ahead of the election in December. There, if anywhere, support would have been needed in the work with democratization.

This may run counter to the government's ambition that local needs in the recipient countries and global changes should be guiding for the design of aid as well as for achieving the aid's goals. But if this is the case, we are not told anything because the government has not reported how it has arrived at this.

As I said, Miljöpartiet welcomes the Riksrevisionen's report and conclusions; we must always strive to improve Swedish aid. But the goal of improving both the actual effect and the reporting of the results must always be linked to the established principles for aid effectiveness and the goal of contributing to precisely better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression.

We in this chamber must manage to keep our eyes on the ball and do our part to contribute to a world that is safer for more. Our international development cooperation is completely central to that work and must be treated accordingly. The changes to the aid, the budget cuts, and the departures from the OECD-DAC principles that the government is now implementing risk affecting precisely those people whom the development cooperation exists to support. It is not to streamline, but it is to take a step back.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We stand here today to discuss a matter of great importance, namely the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Sweden's international aid. It is about how we manage the resources that the Swedish people have entrusted to us – resources that are intended to make a difference for the most vulnerable in the world.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office's report points out three main problems with the aid during the previous government. Firstly, there has been a lack of a clear focus on results. The government's reporting to the Riksdag has not linked the aid's results to the overarching goals in a way that provides sufficient insight. It therefore makes it difficult to ensure that the aid actually achieves the goals we want, namely to help people in need and contribute to long-term development.

Secondly, the Swedish National Audit Office points to a complex and cumbersome governance. Sida has been burdened by a bureaucratic load that has taken focus away from the core task of delivering effective aid. At the same time, the previous government's governance has not been sufficiently adapted to operations, which has created an inefficiency that we simply cannot be satisfied with.

Thirdly, there is a lack of uniform and clear methods for evaluating the long-term effects of aid. We simply cannot say with certainty how well the aid achieves its goals. It is not acceptable.

Madam Speaker! The current government, in which we Christian Democrats are included, shares the Swedish National Audit Office's conclusions. Therefore, since we were appointed, we have worked to address these deficiencies. Our focus is clear, namely that we want to create an aid policy that is results-oriented, transparent, and effective. We are working to link the results of the aid more clearly to the goals, so that the Riksdag and the Swedish people can get a clear picture of what the aid actually achieves. This is a matter of transparency and accountability.

At the same time, we are reducing Sida's administrative burden by simplifying the management and adapting it to the organization's needs so that resources can be placed where they are needed most - in the field. In addition to this, we are strengthening the methods for evaluating the long-term effects of aid. It is crucial that we can assess which interventions work and which do not.

Madam Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, it is a self-evident matter that every tax krona shall be used with the utmost care. Aid is an expression of solidarity and humanity, but it also entails a responsibility to ensure that the resources truly make a difference. It is about respect - respect for the people whom the aid is to help and for the taxpayers who finance it.

Madam Speaker! The previous government's shortcomings are a reminder that good intentions are not always enough. Results must be at the center. We can and must do better, and that is precisely what we are now working to achieve based on this report. By ensuring an aid policy characterized by efficiency, transparency, and ethics, we shall ensure that Sweden's international aid does the greatest possible good.

Sweden has a long and proud tradition of international aid, and we must safeguard that. But we must also constantly improve. Together we can create an aid policy that makes a real difference, that lifts people out of poverty and contributes to freedom and self-determination. It is our common responsibility, and we Christian Democrats take that responsibility most seriously.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a good debate.

Our Minister for Development Cooperation, Benjamin Dousa, has on repeated occasions since taking office said that if you prioritize everything, you prioritize nothing. There is something to that, and that is precisely what this is about at its core. We need to prioritize in order to be effective and have a development cooperation that truly works to achieve the development policy goals and not just prioritize everything so that nothing comes of it.

From the Liberals' side, we as is known safeguard that we shall have 1 percent of GNI for aid, the so-called one percent goal. Under the previous government, we partially succeeded with this, not completely, with the help of among others the Center Party. Under this government, we have once again fought for aid, now together with the Christian Democrats, and safeguarded those parts of the aid that we think are most important.

If one is involved and takes responsibility, Madam Speaker, if one is involved and joins a government, if one takes responsibility and takes the fight seriously and does not just wave around in the speaker's chair here, then one can also succeed in getting one's policies through. That is why, for example, aid for human rights and democracy is so prioritized.

If the Center Party members were to come over and return to the right side of politics and dare to be involved and take responsibility instead of sitting on the bench, perhaps they could get even more support for an even more generous aid line. What do I know? They are welcome.

Madam Speaker! This debate is about the effectiveness of aid. There has been much debate about what constitutes Swedish interests and what does not. It is something that sounds scarier than it is, because just as has been said here earlier, effective aid that safeguards Swedish interests can, for example, involve prioritizing education. It is good for Sweden if people in other parts of the world receive education so that they can participate in the labor market but also come here and perform important work that needs to be done so that we get growing economies and can increase our prosperity together. When people receive freedom and receive education and knowledge, the freedom for others also grows.

The same applies to democracy and human rights. It is clear that it is in Sweden's interest that more countries are democratic and respect human rights. The entire foreign policy right now, Madam Speaker, is characterized by the fact that the axis powers of the new era's evil—Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea—oppose democracy and attempt to wage war against democracy, whether it is in the Middle East, here in Europe, or perhaps in the future in Taiwan. In that case, it is important that more people in the world get to live in democracies. That aid is used for this is both effective and a way to prioritize Swedish interests.

We agree on the aid policy goals, and if we agree on the goals, we should also be able to agree that we shall try to reach them as effectively as possible. But that is the problem – according to the Riksrevisionen report that we are debating here today, we do not know if our aid is effective. So, of course, we cannot have it that way. We must ensure that the money we have – regardless of whether it is 0.7 percent of GNI or 1.0 or 1.5 percent of GNI – is used in an effective manner.

In the long term, it is only capitalism with a market economy and trade that can lift people out of poverty, stably build growth and prosperity, and stably ensure that the cake grows and freedom increases for more. But interventions may be needed along the way where we who have much prosperity help those who do not have much prosperity.

It is the same thing here: When we talk about efficiency in aid there, we need to ensure that we are efficient here. No one benefits from us having too much bureaucracy and too high taxes here or from us being inefficient in other ways—on the contrary. If our cake shrinks, then our ability to help others in the world also shrinks. Efficiency here, a growing economy here, and reduced bureaucracy here create a greater capacity to provide aid there.

This is exactly what this debate is about. We need to have efficiency, dare to prioritize, and stand up for the parts that are important for Sweden. That includes democracy and human rights. That includes equality and sexual and reproductive health. That includes education and several other things that I believe we in this chamber can agree on.

Sweden's international aid - follow-up, evaluation and reporting

Let us hope, Madam Speaker, that more can agree that we shall together take responsibility by trying to push through our policies and take responsibility by streamlining the bureaucracy here so that we can help more there.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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