For two decades, Swedish aid to Mozambique managed to remain both relevant and coherent through armed conflict, corruption scandals and natural disasters. But when the Swedish Government decided in 2026 to wind down the 50-year bilateral partnership within eight months, there was no strategy to safeguard the results achieved. These are the findings of a new evaluation from the Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA).
The evaluation Flexible and Long-Term? Sweden’s Aid and Exit in Mozambique, 2005–2026 examines how well Swedish aid has been able to hold on to long-term goals in a country that has undergone profound change: from the optimism that followed the civil war, through the 2016 “hidden debts” scandal, to the armed conflict in Cabo Delgado and recurring natural disasters.
The evaluation concludes that the aid was highly relevant to the country’s needs, to Sweden’s development goals and to the efforts of other donors. When trust in the state collapsed after the corruption scandal, budget support was abandoned and aid was instead redirected through civil society and multilateral organisations. However, these adjustments were not always made in time.
The evaluation also finds that:
- Swedish aid could have focused on social protection systems at an earlier stage in the fight against poverty
- Swedish aid could have invested more in climate resilience
- there was scope for targeted strengthening of the state even after the corruption scandal
- the choice of partners could have been broader.
An exit is also a development intervention
The phase-out of aid to Mozambique was carried out in an administratively orderly manner but was driven by a very tight timeline focused on closing financial commitments. Sweden’s partners had limited opportunities to influence the process. The consequences are therefore likely to be uneven: large infrastructure investments are expected to be relatively sustainable, while civil society organisations, social protection programmes and work on governance, gender equality, and sexual and reproductive health and rights face a significantly higher risk of disruption. The evaluation also points to risks for Sweden’s reputation as a predictable, long-term development partner.
“An exit is also a development intervention. How Sweden leaves a partner country affects both the sustainability of results and trust in Sweden as a partner, and it needs to be planned as carefully as the cooperation itself,” says Mats Hårsmar, project manager at EBA.
What the evaluation does, and does not, examine: The evaluation assesses how Swedish aid has been adapted to changing circumstances and how the phase-out was carried out. It does not assess the results or long-term effects of Swedish aid.
About the report: Flexible and Long-Term? Sweden’s Aid and Exit in Mozambique, 2005–2026 is written by Inge Tvedten, Ingela Ternström and José Jaime Macuane. The full report (in English) and a summary in Swedish and English: Flexible and Long-Term? Sweden’s Aid and Exit in Mozambique, 2005–2026.