This is how Sweden has taken part in its own aid

When the war in Ukraine broke out, the Swedish government decided to spend over nine billion kroner to cover the costs of receiving Ukrainian refugees.

The money was taken from the Swedish aid budget, this year at SEK 57 billion. The move is neither new nor against the regulations. According to the OECD’s Aid Committee (DAC), which works to ensure and review aid, it is permitted to use aid money to cover parts of the asylum costs at home – a so-called settlement.

The work had to be interrupted

But it is also not unproblematic and can have major consequences for individual projects, and ultimately people, in poorer countries.

Settlements for refugee costs can, as in the case after Russia’s invasion in February, be made during the course of the year – and have direct consequences elsewhere. For example, almost 40 percent of the Nature Conservancy’s global program, which is financed with aid money, was frozen with immediate effect.

— In Ethiopia, where we have a collaboration, they had stepped in with support to build up a seed base that had been destroyed in the war, so that the very poorest small farmers could continue with their agricultural activities. But that work had to be interrupted, says Karin Lexén, secretary general of the Nature Conservation Association.

She also mentions efforts in the Philippines, South Africa and Kenya, as well as climate work in Ukraine, which had to be canceled when the budget was changed.

The floods in Pakistan in September left half a million people homeless. Some of them were able to move into temporary housing from the UN refugee agency UNCHR. Poor countries are affected

Since 2006, Sweden has in practice achieved the long-established goal that at least one percent of gross national income (GNI) should go to aid to other countries, with the aim of “creating conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression”.

The umbrella organization Concord, which gathers over 80 Swedish aid organizations, has consistently criticized the settlements and pointed out that poor countries suffer when aid is changed at short notice to pay for the Swedish refugee reception.

— The two things need to be kept completely separate and the money needs to be planned in a different way. We can’t just go in and take money from those living in poverty, that’s disrespectful and cynical, says Mattias Brunander, assistant general secretary at Diakonia.

The calculations are made based on the Migration Agency’s forecast and cost calculation of how many people are expected to seek asylum in Sweden. Over the years, the National Audit Office has criticized the model for, among other things, a lack of transparency and because the authority calculated costs that are not compatible with international aid rules.

— It’s the costs for the Migration Agency’s refugee reception that you really only write off. For example, if we help Bangladesh with their large refugee intake, our aid goes to Bangladesh. In the same way, this is where our costs are covered, says aid expert Staffan Landin.

The biggest settlement was during the refugee crisis in 2015. Then 8.9 billion, corresponding to 22 percent, of the aid budget was spent on refugee reception in Sweden.

Matilda Ernkrans (S), minister of aid in the former social democratic government.

After the spring amendment budget in April this year and the announcement that at least SEK 9.2 billion would be deducted from aid, the social democratic government has gradually reduced that expenditure.

— The analysis from the Swedish Migration Agency was made three days into the war, and that makes it by definition uncertain. Pretty soon it became clear that there would not be that many Ukrainian refugees, says Staffan Landin.

Ernkrans (S): Following the refugee stream

The spring’s announcement that billions in aid will need to be re-planned and spent on Ukrainian refugees was not an easy announcement to make, but necessary, says Matilda Ernkrans (S), who was minister for aid at the time.

“It was an exceptional situation,” says Ernkrans.

— Using the aid to improve the living conditions of people around the world so that you don’t have to flee is the best idea. But as long as we have not stopped Russia’s war in Ukraine, it will also affect Sweden. But we must use that money as restrictively as possible, the settlements follow what the refugee flow has looked like to Sweden.

This spring, settlements of over SEK 10 billion were made from the aid based on the Migration Agency’s forecast that 76,000 Ukrainians would come to Sweden.

Currently, Sweden is estimated to spend 6.1 billion on refugee costs in Sweden in 2022, but the sum is expected to shrink further by the turn of the year. For the aid organization Diakonia, which has received back the money that was frozen, the damage has already been done in many places.

— It disrupts the entire planning of the business. When they freeze, an incredible amount is slowed down. So even though we got it back, the whole year is disrupted, says Mattias Brunander.

Ceiling for settlements

During the ten-year period 2012–2021, more than SEK 42 billion has been spent on Swedish refugee reception. On average, this means that Sweden has used nine percent of each year’s aid budget for its own account.

— The refugee settlements have nothing to do with the objective of the aid. But it has been very important to stick to the one percent target, while filling it with other things, says Staffan Landin.

Instead of the one percent target, the new M-KD-L government, with the support of the SD, has decided that the Swedish aid in the future will be set as a three-year fixed amount. The aid budget, which is expected to be SEK 56 billion in the coming years, must also contain a ceiling for settlements for refugee reception of eight percent – and a larger share of the aid must go to civil society organizations.

For 2023, the aid budget corresponds to 0.88 percent of GNI. According to Staffan Landin, there is a risk that the actual aid activities abroad will receive less space in the aid budget than today, because the Migration Agency’s costs for an asylum seeker will remain the same.

“How many people seek asylum is not something we can decide, and that is what determines the refugee settlements,” he says.