Implementation and Monitoring of the 2030 Agenda in Swedish Municipalities

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

OF THE 2030 AGENDA

IN SWEDISH MUNICIPALITIES

MICHAELA HELLSTEN

ANTON LINDSTRÖM

School of Business, Society and Engineering Course: Degree Project in Industrial Engineering and Management

Course code: FOA402 Credits: 30 hp

Program: Industrial Economic and Management

Supervisor: Roland Hellberg Examiner: Pär Blomkvist

Customer: Helena Paulsson, AFRY Date: 2020-06-08

Email: mhn14008@studnet.mdh.se alm15005@student.mdh.se

(2)

ABSTRACT

The 2030 Agenda consists of environmental, economic, and social perspectives with 17 universal sustainability goals with 169 targets for the world to meet by the year 2030. Sweden is historically known for its sustainability work, and the Swedish government decided to continue that work by making an action plan for the 2030 Agenda with the expectation that municipalities and regions will execute most of the work. The targets were initially presented with individual global indicators so that progress can be measured, the Swedish government decided to provide more useful indicators for the municipalities’ monitoring process. The problem is that most Swedish municipalities have not yet started to implement the Agenda even though there are only ten years left to accomplish it. There is a lack of research done on the 2030 Agenda on a municipal level, so it is difficult to know what is stopping municipalities from adopting the 2030 Agenda. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify crucial factors affecting the undertaking regarding the implementation and measurement of the 2030 Agenda for Swedish municipalities.

Thirteen people representing the three segments; politicians, strategists, and operational offices, from five different municipalities, were interviewed for this study. The chosen municipalities were Gothenburg, Malmö, Umeå, Norrköping, and Västervik. The municipalities are at various stages of implementing the Agenda, and this provided a realistic and fair view of the crucial factors affecting them. These interviews were complemented with three pre-study interviews to, together with literature study, accommodate triangulation. All interviews were semi-structured to allow the interview subjects to speak freely about their view of the implementation and monitoring process regarding the Agenda.

This study concludes that many factors are affecting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Depending on strength and weaknesses in each municipality and segment, the experiences of struggles vary. The synoptic conclusion is that the Agenda requires committed and knowledgeable leaders; a cross-sectional way of working within the organisation; collaborations with both private and public stakeholders but also research institutions; information and educational activities for the organisation, stakeholders and citizens; a holistic view where all three perspectives are handled simultaneously; integration of the Agenda in existing governance documents, processes, and systems; behavioural change in citizens; allocation of resources for this cause; execute proper analyses and assessments both for implementation and monitoring of all targets.

The implementation benefits from having networks where an exchange of experiences can take place; a dedicated team pursuing the implementation; getting national support in forms of resources, guidance or change of regulations; following the Municipal Adaptation Plan, MAP, process for strategic planning.

Keywords: the 2030 Agenda, implementation, integration, Swedish municipalities, and

(3)

SAMMANFATTNING

Titel: Implementering och uppföljning av Agenda 2030 i svenska kommuner

Agenda 2030 består av 17 globala hållbarhetsmål med 169 delmål som världens länder ska uppfylla till år 2030. Agendan upprätthåller ekonomiska, sociala och miljömässiga perspektiv. Sverige är känt för sitt hållbarhetsarbete och den svenska regeringen bestämde sig att för att fortsätta detta arbete genom att utveckla en handlingsplan för Agenda 2030. Mestadelen av det arbete som krävs för att uppnå målen i Agenda 2030 förväntas utföras av kommuner och regioner. För att kunna mäta utvecklingen så har delmålen blivit tillägnade globala indikatorer, regeringen har sett till att tillhandahålla fler indikatorer som är bättre anpassade för svenska förhållanden. Ett problem är att de flesta kommuner inte har påbörjat processen med att implementera Agendan i sin verksamhet och det är bara 10 år kvar innan målen ska vara uppfyllda. Det finns en brist på studier gällande Agenda 2030 på en kommunal nivå, det är därför svårt att avgöra vad som hindrar kommunerna från att ta till sig agendan. Därmed så är studiens syfte att identifiera avgörande faktorer som påverkar implementeringen och uppföljningen av Agenda 2030 i svenska kommuner.

Tretton personer som representerar tre olika segment från fem olika kommuner blev intervjuade. Segmenten bestod av politiker, strateger och förvaltningar och de utvalda kommunerna var Göteborg, Malmö, Umeå, Norrköping och Västervik. Dessa kommuner har kommit olika långt i sin implementeringsprocess och kunde därmed ge en trovärdig och verklig bild av vilka faktorer som påverkar dem. Dessa intervjuer kompletterades, tillsammans med den vetenskapliga litteraturen, med intervjuer från en förstudie för att på så sätt skapa triangulering. Alla intervjuer var semistrukturerade för att ge intervjuobjektet friheten av själv beskriva sin bild av implementering och uppföljning av agendan.

Studien kommer fram till att det är många faktorer som påverkar implementationen av Agenda 2030. Beroende på kommunernas och segments olika styrkor och svagheter så varierar deras problem. Den övergripande slutsatsen är att Agendan behöver en engagerad, villig och kunnig ledning; tvärsektionellt arbetssätt; samarbeten med privata och statliga intressenter men även forskningsinstitut; information och kunskapshöjande aktiviteter för organisationen, intressenter och invånare; ett holistiskt förhållningssätt där alla tre perspektiven hanteras simultant; integrering av Agendan i befintliga dokument, processer och system; beteendeförändring hos invånare; dedikerade resurser för detta ändamål; utföra tillräckligt med analyser och utvärderingar gällande på implementering och uppföljning av alla delmålen.

Implementeringen gynnas även från att ha nätverk där erfarenhetsutbyte kan ske; en arbetsgrupp dedikerad till implementeringen av Agenda 2030; nationell hjälp i form av resurser, vägledning och förändring av regelverk; följa the Municipal Adaptation Plan, MAP, vid strategisk planering.

(4)

FOREWORD

We want to aim special acknowledgements to all of our interview subjects in Gothenburg, Malmö, Umeå, Norrköping, Västervik as well as those who participated in our pre-study. Thank you so much for giving us the time and engagement to conduct our interviews.

We want to give gratitude to our employer Helena Paulsson at AFRY for trusting us with executing this study. We especially want to thank our supervisor Charlotta Glantzberg and advisor Maja Manner at AFRY for guiding, supporting, and encouraging us to improve the result of this study. We want to thank our supervisor Roland Hellberg and Pär Blomkvist, at Mälardalens University, for giving us advice and guidance in academic writing. We also want to thank all opponents at Mälardalens University, who have contributed to improving the quality of this study and report. Last but not least, we want to thank all our friends and family for helping and giving us support and encouragement throughout our education.

(5)

4.2.7.1. Politicians ... 32 4.2.7.2. Strategists ... 32 4.2.7.3. Operational offices ... 33 4.2.8 National support ... 33 4.2.8.1. Politicians ... 33 4.2.8.2. Strategists ... 33 4.2.8.3. Operational office ... 33 4.2.9 Internal cooperation ... 33 4.2.9.1. Politicians ... 33 4.2.9.2. Strategist ... 34 4.2.9.3. Operational offices ... 34

4.2.10 External collaborations and networks ... 35

4.2.11 Knowledge and information ... 36

4.2.11.1. Politicians ... 36

4.2.11.2. Strategists ... 36

4.2.11.3. Operational offices ... 36

4.2.11.4. Monitoring ... 36

5 DISCUSSION ...38

5.1 INITIATIVE AND COMMITMENT ... 38

5.2 IMPLEMENTATION ... 39

5.3 CONFLICTING GOALS ... 43

5.4 SOCIAL AWARENESS, BOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVE ... 44

5.5 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE ... 44

5.6 COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION ... 46

5.7 MONITORING ... 48

6 CONCLUSION ...49

7 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...51

REFERENCES ...52 APPENDIX 1:INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE

(7)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1BREAKDOWN OF SUSTAINABILITY GOALS OF THE 2030AGENDA (CREDIT:AZOTE IMAGES FOR STOCKHOLM RESILIENCE CENTRE) ... 2

ABBREVIATIONS AND THESAURUS

Abbreviation

Full name in Swedish

Description

RKA Rådet för främjande av Kommunala Analyser

National Swedish council supporting municipal analyses

SCB Statistiska Centralbyrån Supplies statistics for decision making, debate and research

SKR Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner Swedish coordinating organisation of municipalities and regions

Abbreviation

Full name

MDG Millennium Development Goals

TRANSLATIONS

English

Swedish

City council Kommunfullmäktige

Executive board Kommunstyrelse

Board or department Nämnd

(8)

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Climate change is the most significant political and scientific challenge of our time, and efforts to reduce our carbon footprint have been going on for over 30 years. The threat of climate change incorporates every facet of all operations from a global perspective down to the local level. (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006) As stated by Greta Thunberg at the Austrian World Summit 2019 about climate change:

“This is above all an emergency and not just any emergency. This is the biggest crisis humanity

has ever faced. This is not something you can like on Facebook.”

What Greta Thunberg says here invokes the growing concerns and awareness of environmental issues. From this, the term sustainability has grown forth, where environmental, social and economic concerns are taken into consideration in creating a sustainable future (Bartholdsson, 2009). Since the end of the Cold War globalisation has become more prevalent than ever and where several multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, UN, and its associated agencies have taken a more significant role in the complex global governance (Wunderlich, 2012). In the year 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held. During the conference Agenda 21 was adopted, Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to work towards sustainability on a global, national and local level. Agenda 21 was grouped into four sections: social and economic dimensions; conservation and management of resources for development; strengthening the role of major groups; and means of implementation. (United Nations, 1992)

Agenda 21 states that the local government should with their citizens make their Local Agenda 21. In chapter 21 of the Agenda 21 plan about local authorities, it only contains seven points that should be describing the whole process for local authorities. It also states that it sees local authorities as a determining factor in fulfilling the objectives of the entire Agenda. It puts the local part as vital in mobilising, responding and educating to promote sustainable development to the public. (United Nations, 1992) The reasons behind the short and not well-developed local Agenda 21 is that it did not have a consensus from the start that it should look into urban issues. When urban issues were included in the global development plan, it did not emphasise urban development (Parnell, 2016).

In the year 2000, the United Nations launched the Millennium Development Goals, MDG. The MDG was built upon a decade of United Nations summits and conferences. These resulted in eight different goals to be completed by the year 2015. The goals of MDG were aimed to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development. (Chopra & Mason, 2015; United Nations, 2015)

(9)

2

By the end of the 15-year effort, the results show that the MDG had been the world's most successful anti-poverty movement in history. However, the MDG had many shortcomings. One shortcoming was the narrow developmental outcome plan. (Chopra & Mason, 2015) Priorities of the targets need to be set, so they are relevant at the local level, the MDG was focused around national aggregates which reduces for the aim of the local level (Waage et al., 2010).

Figure 1 Breakdown of Sustainability Goals of the 2030 Agenda (Credit: Azote Images for Stockholm Resilience Centre)

As a continuation of the MDG and Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda was constructed to build upon the successes of its predecessors and to implement the lessons learned. The United Nations presented the 2030 Agenda in 2015, also referred to as Sustainable Development Goals, SDG. The 2030 Agenda consists of 17 universal sustainability goals with 169 targets for the world to meet by the year 2030. (United Nations, 2015) The targets are presented with individual indicators so that progress can be measured (United Nations, 2017, p.20). The goals for 2030 are set to be people-centred and to provide equality to the world in economic, social and environmental aspects. Problems such as poverty; hunger; illiteracy; discrimination; and violence will be eliminated or heavily-reduced by 2030 according to this plan. The 2030 Agenda also wants to secure and protect natural resources and the planet as a whole. (United Nations, 2015) Although, many of the goals use terms as substantial, ensure, strengthen, support, relevant and effective to describe what the goal wants to achieve, which makes them vague and therefore difficult to measure (Håkansson, 2005; Rosander, 2016).

1.1 The Swedish perspective

Sweden is historically known for its work with sustainability issues (Kjellén et al., 2007), which has now been proven further when the government decided on an action plan for the 2030 Agenda which the department of Finance is utterly responsible for (Regeringskansliet, 2018). Much of this action plan needs to be executed by municipalities and other county councils all over Sweden for it to be possible to meet the goals, as they are the ones responsible for many of the societal functions at the local and regional levels (Finansdepartementet, 2018; United Nations, 2015). It was necessary to provide more precise targets that were customised to Swedish municipalities. Therefore, the government assigned Rådet för främjande av Kommunala Analyser, RKA, to

(10)

3

provide useful indicators for the municipalities to use to be able to measure the progress of their activities, that document was delivered in April of 2019 (RKA, 2019). Together with RKA, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, developed a digital tool called Kolada, which compares a specific municipality with the national average for every indicator and it also shows the yearly progress since 2015 (RKA, n.d.; SKR, n.d.). This tool can be used to help municipalities to prioritise which goals to focus on, and to view the progress. To further assist municipalities, the Swedish government has assigned a national coordinator who will provide more information and knowledge, highlight examples of successful actions, help and increase cooperation between all actors of society, all in regard to fulfilling the 2030 Agenda (Regeringen, 2020).

All Swedish municipalities have the same responsibilities to provide certain services and welfare for its citizens, even though pre-conditions such as the amount of resources, population, location and area of the municipalities can differ immensely. As the amount of resources varies the ability to take action will be lower in municipalities with a weaker capacity. The financial differences between municipalities are increasing, as a rise in urbanisation creates a more prominent polarisation, which is only expected to worsen over time. All this leaves some municipalities vulnerable, as it limits the possibilities to employ specialists or dedicate enough resources for strategic development and also to seek government funding. Which also results in municipalities having to come up with very different strategies suitable for their specific situation. (SOU, 2020) Every municipality has its way of structure and organisation, where responsibilities and tasks can be divided differently depending on the municipality. The overall structure of the organisation is that elected politicians sit in the city council, which is the highest ruling segment in the organisation. They are responsible for all strategic, financial and organisational decisions, which means that they decide which boards should exist and what their responsibilities should be. The executive board is elected by the city council and is in charge of coordinating all work in the organisation. Each board, except usually not the executive, are in charge of an operational office which runs the operation. (SKR, 2019) Since the organisation varies between the municipalities, so do the types of governance documents.

1.1.1 Status-report in Swedish municipalities

SKR (2019) has done a compilation of the initiatives correlated to the 2030 Agenda in each of the 121 responding municipalities. This compilation shows that there are only a few that have started to implement the goals in their operations (SKR, 2019), but 70 % state that they are using the 2030 Agenda in their sustainability work (Stadskontoret, 2019). Several municipalities have evaluated existing governance documents in regards to the goals to see to what extent they already fulfil the Agenda (SKR, 2019; Stadskontoret, 2019). Some of them will not make any significant changes to their existing governance documents as they think they fulfil enough portions of the goals (SKR, 2019). Many of the smaller and medium-sized municipalities prioritise environmental goals above the social and economic goals (SKR, 2019). A common action has been to increase the level of knowledge for decision-making people and coworkers (Stadskontoret, 2019) using a Sida financed educational network called Glocal Sweden (FN, n.d.), among some ways. Quite many have dedicated a function for the Agenda, but in reality, it most often has just been a shift of a title but not the work itself (Stadskontoret, 2019). The actions yet performed can be seen as superficial and

(11)

4

only to a minimal extent, contribute to the development of their sustainability work (Stadskontoret, 2019).

Many municipalities have various governance documents pending, waiting for approval during 2020, which have integrated the 2030 Agenda (SKR, 2019). Forty-nine municipalities were granted to join the network Glocal Sweden in 2020 to learn more about the 2030 Agenda (Glokala Sverige & Klimat, 2020). All of this shows the potential for a nearby and future commitment to the Agenda.

Sweden has reached many of the 21 targets, which were to be met by 2020 in comparison internationally using the global, not Swedish indicators (SCB, 2019). Nevertheless, there are a total of 148 targets to be met by 2030, which requires more efforts to be met, and Sweden has, in many areas, higher ambitions than the global Agenda (SOU, 2019). According to the environmental protection agency, Naturvårdsverket, Sweden will only reach one of the Swedish environmental goals and get close to one more, most actually showing a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket, 2019).

1.2 Problematization

The Swedish government expects, but it is not a requirement, that all municipalities and regions take action in fulfilling the sustainability goals of the 2030 Agenda. The government has provided an action plan and also relevant indicators useful for the measurement of progress at a local level. When looking at the national level that is depicted in Rosander's (2016) study of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in the Swedish government's organisation, it is found that the implementation varies between different departments. That depends on political leadership and how much the issue is prioritised. The findings also show that there is some ambiguousness towards responsibilities regarding the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. (Rosander, 2016) For municipalities, it is important to focus on political and institutional barriers for implementation and to be aware of the differences in local and national policies. They should also consider what they have learned from past initiatives such as Agenda 21. (Fenton & Gustafsson, 2017; Håkansson, 2005)

With the 2030 Agenda, the urban development in municipalities has taken a more prominent role. The 2030 Agenda includes more precise goals, than previous global Agendas, and aspirational statements of how the international community preferably would be like at the end of the 2030 Agenda. (Parnell, 2016) Municipalities hold the keys to succeed with solving climate change, since what they do have effects on both local and global levels when handling an issue (Bloomberg, 2015).

In a master thesis done by Iaffa Nylén (2018), before the Swedish national action plan and indicators for municipalities were finished. It was concluded that employees of various municipalities had very little knowledge about the 2030 Agenda and that they had not been given any information about it in their current positions. Iaffa Nylén's study also found goals and targets to be too general and that they needed to be concretised to much smaller elements if the goals were going to be implemented. The study also pointed out that the environmental goals were found to

(12)

5

be easier to work with as you could put words and numbers to it. Still, the social and economic goals were found to be challenging to get everyone to understand and prioritise. (Iaffa Nylén, 2018) That could be explained with a higher prioritisation of environmental goals in the Swedish society in recent years.

What is clear from Agenda 21 is that local sustainability efforts have never been prioritised as the primary focus area for global sustainability issues, even though it is seen as vital. Previous attempts have had a top-down approach with national goals to reach with little consideration for how these goals should be implemented and measured by the local municipalities, to help achieve the global sustainability goals. With the 2030 Agenda, the local level has been given an even more prominent role in fulfilling those goals. Still, since only little guidance has been given on the local level, it has resulted in municipalities not having a consistent and thorough way of dealing with these issues. There is a need for further research on the topic of how the 2030 Agenda should or currently, is implemented and also what barriers are aggravating the progress on a local level so that use tools and methods for sustainability work can be found (Fenton & Gustafsson, 2017; Iaffa Nylén, 2018; Rosander, 2016). Lafferty (2004) also states that further research is needed regarding how the work with sustainability agendas are implemented in real-life scenarios. To further stress this, there is only a little research available in regard to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in municipalities and regions.

1.3 Purpose

This study aims to guide municipalities on how to implement the 2030 Agenda. The purpose of this study is to investigate municipalities’ work towards reaching the sustainability goals of the 2030 Agenda and comparing their endeavours with existing research in implementation and monitoring theories. The study also identifies crucial factors and explores why they are affecting the undertaking of the 2030 Agenda, along with investigating what type of measures that can be taken to remediate the negative ones.

1.3.1 Research questions

What crucial factors regarding implementation and monitoring affect the undertaking of the 2030 Agenda for Swedish municipalities, and what further actions are needed?

1.4 Delimitations

The study limits itself to the perspective from Swedish municipalities in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Perspectives from a national and regional governmental level are outside the scope of this study. Neither does this study does not take the different political standings in the municipalities into consideration, nor how different parties work with the 2030 Agenda and what their political agenda is. Nor does this study does not analyse what impact differences in the geographic location might have on the municipalities’ sustainability work.

(13)

6

2 LITERATURE STUDY

The field of study in this master thesis is relatively limited in research since the 2030 Agenda is new, created in 2015, and the local perspective is not the main focus in academia for this field. The research used in the literature needs to apply to a Swedish municipality perspective. To expand the research availability implementation methods for similar projects in municipalities such as Agenda 21, MDG and environmental adaptations have been included when deemed relevant. The structure of this chapter is intended to follow the process municipalities experience when implementing the 2030 Agenda with how the municipalities themselves expressed in the empirical study.

2.1 Initiative and commitment

Who takes the initiative to take action on sustainability issues in municipalities? According to Håkansson (2005), in municipalities with the most successful sustainability work, there are strong administrators or politicians or both driving the issues. These people also tend to be personally interested and engaged in sustainability and environmental matters (Dannevig et al., 2013; Håkansson, 2005). Bartholdsson (2009) and Howes et al. (2017) also agree that it takes committed, engaged and interested officials and politicians if environmental and sustainability issues will be adequately addressed with a successful result. If the politicians are not very interested, an enthusiastic administrator can in some cases compensate for that and still make sure progress is made (Bartholdsson, 2009) which is what is happening in many organisations (Stadskontoret, 2019). A risk with relying on engaged and committed people without establishing a foundation for the work in the organisations’ governance documents is that if they quit or take a leave, the work they have been doing can come to a halt (Bartholdsson, 2009). In a case study done by Danielsson and Gustavsson (2003), they found that in the top of the organisation they are more dependent on specific people making sure progress is maintained, further down in the organisation they rely more on systems and procedures in place.

Events around the world, such as extreme weather, help motivate officials to take actions and can that way be an initiator (Dannevig et al., 2013). Two other triggers for action is a change of desired state or condition of various responsibilities of the municipalities displayed in indicators and also interaction with researchers for example through projects (Dannevig et al., 2013). Compared to Agenda 21, where global participation was low because it was a new concept for local governments but also demanding, innovative and ambitious (Barrutia et al., 2015). The 2030 Agenda attracts more interest (Stadskontoret, 2019), one reason for that could be its similarity to already existing sustainability work and goals, which makes it easier to adopt. Also, Agenda 21 got sustainable work in motion by stimulating citizens and businesses, building trust, breaking down barriers and enriched the quality of the decision-making process to envelope a holistic view of sustainability (Barrutia et al., 2015; Selman, 2000).

(14)

7

2.2 Approaches

A study of the Norwegian progress of the work with Agenda 21, found that the municipalities needed clear guidance and incentives from a national level to be able to meet the targets (Dannevig et al., 2013) which is also supported in a study by Fenton and Gustafsson (2017) regarding the 2030 Agenda. Still, they also add that a clarification of roles and responsibilities is urgently needed. Graute (2016) argues that the past efforts with Agenda 21 and MDG were never appropriately done and what type of support the Agenda 2030 implementations need for the local level from the national and international institutes were never discussed or analysed. When evaluating the MDG Waage et al. (2010) found that the absence of ownership and complexity was a big problem for some targets in the MDG and their analysis. It shows that the subset of targets that were the easiest to implement and monitor or targets that national or international institutions had ownership over, had more focus and progress. While working with Agenda 21, 70 % of the municipalities had a person working part or full time coordinating the work regarding this reform program (Brundin & Eckerberg, 1999). Having a specified group responsible for the implementation process will prove more effective and manageable (Persson et al., 2016).

A crucial factor for a successful implementation is to have support from both the political and organisational management through allocated resources and sanctioned actions (Gustafsson & Ivner, 2018; Howes et al., 2017; Stadskontoret, 2019). Bartholdsson (2009) was questioning the courage of politicians to dedicate enough resources to do this work. The leadership also needs to have a long-term perspective, be perseverant and flexible (SOU, 2019). It is not clear what the Swedish government is expecting of public or private authorities, companies and organisations as the government does not have a national ambition or prioritising (SOU, 2019; Stadskontoret, 2019). A clear political agenda containing social, ecological and economic factors is needed (Naturvårdsverket, 2019), where goals are prioritised to focus implementation processes and make it more efficient and manageable (Persson et al., 2016). Ambiguous governance can also threaten collaborative networking which is needed to reach sustainability goals (Leck & Simon, 2012). Gustafsson et al. (2018) believe that the 2030 Agenda can work as a coordination tool which brings all aspects of sustainability perspectives together, which could increase the overall efficiency in existing sustainability work and bring it to the next level.

After political support is declared, the next step is to integrate the Agenda in governance documents (SOU, 2019) and also to use existing structures, activities and collaboration platforms for the integration of the 2030 Agenda work (Gustafsson & Ivner, 2018; Stadskontoret, 2019). In that way, the wheel is not reinvented, and the risk of having parallel systems is avoided, which of both would be ineffective (Gustafsson & Ivner, 2018; Håkansson, 2005). Graute (2016) and Mukheibir and Ziervogel (2007) state it is essential to get an understanding and do an overview of existing competencies, capacities, and institutional environment to delegate tasks efficiently. Gustafsson & Ivner (2018) propose that a GAP-analysis of existing internal activities in comparison to the desired status should be done, and its result compared with other municipalities’ achievements, to get an overview to develop an action plan (Stadskontoret, 2019). Mukheibir and Ziervogel (2007) promote a Municipal Adaptation Plan, MAP, process to conclude a strategy for climate change, which in many ways has similarities with the 2030 Agenda goals. The MAP consists of ten steps which can be summarised as doing: a current status analysis both in regards to the problems addressed in the goals and the ability of the municipality to face these;

(15)

8

vulnerability assessments, reviews of current development plans and priorities; investigate options of solutions and to prioritise actions and issues (Mukheibir & Ziervogel, 2007). A powerful tool to use when wanting to reach results in sustainability work is to integrate sustainability factors in public procurements, which today is not used to its full potential (Naturvårdsverket, 2019; SOU, 2019).

2.3 Conflicting goals

There are many existing ideas on how a municipality should maintain sustainable development. Each municipality usually has a bunch of visionary, goal and action plan documents that the organisation must follow (Svenberg, 2014). These documents but also other agendas and agreements with various perspectives in focus can create conflicts if the goals of these agreements and plans are contradicting (Howes et al., 2017; Leck & Simon, 2012; Svenberg, 2014). There is no legal obligation for the municipalities to include analyses and assessments of conflicting targets when planning and deciding on governance documents. The lack of legal requirement could also be a reason for the lack of tools and official strategies for planners to use, leaving each municipality to invent their own solutions. (Myhrberg, 2016)

With the 2030 Agenda, no goal is supposed to be met at the expense of another (Stadskontoret, 2019). Although Bartholdsson (2009), Howes et al. (2017) and M. Nilsson et al. (2016) state that there are conflicting objectives in the 2030 Agenda if no assessment is done. Naturvårdsverket (2018) does not agree with them, at least not if you only look at the environmental targets which they believe have many synergies where actions can indirectly affect other targets positively. Pradhan et al. (2017) and Weitz et al. (2018) also disagrees and states that most of the synergies between goals in the 2030 Agenda are positive, only with a few trade-offs mostly regarding responsible consumption and production. Although, it is important to bear in mind that most municipalities have many more targets and perhaps a more comprehensive vision than just the 2030 Agenda. It is also important to distinguish the direct and indirect effect of possible action on the targets (Gustafsson and Iyner, 2018) but also to make the most of existing synergies within and between subject areas to achieve cost efficiency (SOU, 2019). Establish a structured analysis and to do a follow up of all conflicting goals is crucial to be able to maintain a sustainable development, which in most municipalities is inconclusive or insufficient (Myhrberg, 2016). Cross-sectional communication and work within the organisation are also a key factor to minimize conflicting targets (Howes et al., 2017; Leck & Simon, 2012; Sternad Fackel, 2018).

While reaching for goal completion, it is essential to consider long term effects and also the cost of not taking any action. To not take action now can in the future cause increased damage or irreversible effects for future generations that will cost more to rectify. (SOU, 2019) In the private sector, the environmental and sustainable perspective has only been prioritized when there has been a potential for beneficial outcomes of efforts in the short-term perspective (Danielsson & Gustavsson, 2003). There is a misconception that a focus on environmental issues would reduce a company's competitiveness, when in fact it can trigger innovations which ultimately makes the company more competitive and also benefits social and environmental aspects (Porter & van der Linde, 1995; SOU, 2019).

(16)

9

2.4 Social Awareness, bottom-up perspective

The 2030 Agenda requires a change in behaviour and attitudes from both an individual and a society level (SOU, 2019). Persson et al., (2016) finds that the key factor for national parliaments and local governments to take ownership of the 2030 Agenda is the existence of a broad social awareness about the issues. Social awareness has to be built and nurtured, to create and sustain long term communication channels where the Agenda can be advocated (SOU, 2019). These channels can be used to increase knowledge and awareness of sustainable development, which then could increase innovation, commitment and behavioural change (SOU, 2019). However, Nilsson (2001) argues that citizens show more significant engagement with projects that are closer in time and their interests than projects that are at a long-term, strategic and structural overview planning level. Rural areas have better opportunities than urban areas to work with a bottom-up perspective, but it is the urban areas that can have the most substantial impact on sustainability. Citizens' participation should be viewed as an essential part when creating a sustainable society. (K. Nilsson, 2001)

2.5 Municipal organization and structure

After the introduction of Agenda 21, the municipalities were forced to evaluate their way of working with cross-border topics, where their work had up until then been structured in a very hierarchic and isolated way (Håkansson, 2005). When the 2030 Agenda was introduced, it got even more necessary to not look at the 17 goals as isolated silos, but as an intricate web where everyone has to focus on their tasks but also understand the interrelationships and effects, it has on the overall progress on each goal (Graute, 2016). Nevertheless, in Håkansson (2005) study of Swedish municipalities, she found that environmental factors are more straightforward to integrate than social factors. The given reason for this is that the strategists themself usually are more knowledgeable and familiar with environmental matters. Environmental factors generally have more available details compared to social factors. It is not uncommon for people to make their own interpretations of reports depending on their interests, so strategists with limited knowledge regarding other perspectives than environmental could make misleading assessments of reports. (Håkansson, 2005) To mitigate those risks a cross-sectional working environment is needed, to strive for implementing this perspective in the entire municipal organization by creating communicative learning processes to build competence and standard references to develop a common language and trust between the different sectors (Gustafsson et al., 2018; Håkansson, 2005; Howes et al., 2017; Sternad Fackel, 2018). Leck and Simon (2012) believe that a lack of framework and guidance on how to create these cross-sectional networks is a prominent obstacle. Another problem is that many government bodies, municipalities and regions do not realise that their procedures have to change in order to accommodate and include all facets of the 2030 Agenda (Stadskontoret, 2019). One reason for that could be divergent priorities between individuals and departments which then creates an unwillingness for collaboration in the organisation (Leck & Simon, 2012).

Urban sustainability can not only be viewed from the local perspective but be built through multiple political spaces. It should be looked at from a holistic viewpoint where the relationship

(17)

10

between national institutes and network governance are looked at together (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005). However, multilevel governance has challenges in how we conceptualise and examine problems, and there is a need to change how management works when looking at environmental and sustainability issues because of the increasingly complex vertical linkages required (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Leitner & Sheppard, 2002). It also shows the complexity, and the national-level state institutions’ reduced ability to affect the policymaking process (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006). On the other hand, Kousky & Schneider (2003) argues that first when options have been demonstrated as effective at the local level, then it can become likely for regional, national and international levels of government to adopt similar policies. So, the benefits of local actions can then spur activities higher up as awareness spreads.

2.6 Coordination and collaboration

According to Graute (2016), coordination between local actors is minimal and effective coordination is missing altogether. There is a need for regional levels to work together to reach the goals of the Agenda 2030. A single actor cannot handle it alone and being part of networks often increases the possibility to take part of external economic resources or to be invited into projects (Gustafsson & Ivner, 2018; Gustavsson, 2008). Collaboration creates both opportunities and difficulties (Gustafsson et al., 2018). According to Graute (2016), it is necessary to have an outstanding information exchange and a comprehensive collaboration between all actors in the governance and management for implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and a failure to obtain information is a common reason for failure when implementing new agendas (Howes et al., 2017). Local and regional actors need to develop a mutual view and plan that connects all aspects of the 2030 Agenda and decide what they can work together on and on which organization that should take responsibility for what (Georgeson & Maslin, 2018; Gustafsson & Ivner, 2018). The 2030 Agenda delegation suggested the government declaring a joint program with SKR to further implement the Agenda through, among some activities, increased knowledge sharing (SOU, 2019). Being part of a network creates a weight on the issue and gives it a better position to compete about the municipality's often limited resources (Gustavsson, 2008). Nonetheless, as stated by Barnett and Parnell (2016), there is a vast difference in views of the municipalities regarding what their role is concerning sustainable development and in their understanding of urban issues. Other reasons for municipalities not to actively engage in networks outside their local and regional area are that they do not have the economic and personal resources required to do so (Gustavsson, 2008).

To get a more substantial impact on sustainability work the municipalities need to involve all stakeholders, private and public but also research institutions and get their engagement in order to encourage innovation and to mobilise resources (Mukheibir & Ziervogel, 2007; Persson et al., 2016; SOU, 2019). The Swedish 2030 Agenda delegation wants the government to encourage new forms of collaborations by inviting companies and organisations from the business sector to the table when discussing sustainable development in Sweden but also internationally (SOU, 2019). According to Howes et al. (2017), a common mistake is not communicating to stakeholders all the contributing aspects affecting sustainable development. Apart from including the business sector,

(18)

11

it is also essential to make sure that the civil society is included, engaged and committed to being able to deliver on the goals (Persson et al., 2016).

More than just local cooperation, there is also a need for collaboration on a global level for topics such as sustainable investments (Regeringskansliet, 2020). Governance has to move towards a multilevel understanding instead of seeing the state as the main target of transnational networks (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). Mejía-Dugand et al. (2016) suggest that international networks of cities offer access to members on a global scale and it might provide benefits such as pooling knowledge and emerging with the global process due to the wide variety of members. It can sometimes be easier for municipalities to find international collaborators than national since they can be more similar in size and have more similar conditions (Gustavsson, 2008). Cities in both developed and developing countries can through international networks facilitate their successes, share experience and knowledge, support one and other and provide potential solutions. Since networks that work towards reaching sustainability have the same common goals, this will strengthen the network further. (Lee, 2012; Mejía-Dugand et al., 2016) Betsill & Bulkeley (2004) found that networks of cities are organized by political and financial resources as much as information sharing, and their research suggests that it is, in fact, the political and financial resources that hold the networks together.

In an investigation done by Statens Offentliga Utredningar, SOU, (2020) they bring forth corners about municipalities cooperating from a democratic view. They state that it could impact the single municipality with reduced control, increased complexity for voters and elected officials, it makes it harder for smaller political parties to get representation in the collaboration and reduced possibility for voters to get accountability. Municipalities are often dependent on certain key individuals and vulnerable to political changes, and it can create instability. (SOU, 2020)

2.7 Monitoring

Agenda 21 was unsuccessful in its long-term orientation and monitoring because of the lack of performance indicators. Which was because they could not evaluate their own process and due to the lack of good indicators, local actors had trouble with monitoring sustainability to determine the suitability of their strategy and if the implementation were sufficient. (Barrutia et al., 2015) Nevertheless, the monitoring should not be a size that makes it incalculable (SCB, 2019). When committing to the 2030 Agenda, Persson et al. (2016) argue that ambiguities have to be resolved on how to follow up and why. So that the countries that report on actions made towards reaching the 2030 Agenda instead of using indicator-based reporting, reasons for this is that some of the actions taken towards the 2030 Agenda might not be reflected on an annual basis since some actions take longer to affect. (Persson et al., 2016) However, according to Mukheibir & Ziervogel (2007) to monitor and evaluate the progress, regular reviews and modifications of the plans are needed at predetermined intervals. Reporting done on a national, regional and local level could grant transparency and accountability measurements at all levels and make it so that the goals become interwoven with everyday life (Georgeson & Maslin, 2018).

(19)

12

3 METHOD

The nature of the study is exploratory since the purpose of this study is to investigate which factors affect municipalities’ work with implementing and monitoring the 2030 Agenda. Therefore, an inductive research approach with qualitative empirical information collection was performed which can provide a deeper understanding of the research questions. This is all following Blomkvist and Hallin (2014, p.24-25, 45-46) and Gray (2017, p.37,59) suggestion of methodology for a study with this type of research question. The empirical data was collected in two phases: a prestudy and in-depth interviews. Having two phases increased the validity of collected insights. Both phases were conducted through semi-structured interviews with an interpreting focus. Semi-structured interviews are preferred when the research question is of such character that the interview subjects have to be given a chance to explain experiences, examples of the phenomenon and their perspective on the subject (Hallin & Helin, 2018).

For literature gathering Google Scholar, Diva and ProQuest were used. The literature used in this master thesis was peer-reviewed, published in a recent enough time frame to be still relevant. Search queries such as “2030 Agenda”, “Sustainability”, “Municipalities”, “Millennium Development Goals”, “Agenda 21”, “Climate change” and “Urban development” were used in both English and Swedish. The literature that was found relevant was further analysed, and their sources were used to find more relevant studies. This created a snowball effect, where information was gained. Mälardalens University’s academic library was also used to gather information from books regarding management and implementation theories but also Swedish municipalities' organisation and structure.

3.1 Pre-study interviews

The first phase consisted of interviews with RKA, Glocal Sweden and a municipal strategist. Each interview was done through a phone call which lasted between 30-50 minutes. The questions asked were similar as in phase two but adopted to the interview objects. This phase was done to increase our validity of interview questions to ask in phase two and also gave us useful background information on how they work with the 2030 Agenda came about and its current status. RKA described their work up until now with choosing suitable indicators for the 2030 Agenda for municipalities to use. Since RKA has close contact with municipalities, they could give their view on the progress that municipalities have and their struggles. The strategist has experience working with sustainability issues in multiple municipalities around the Stockholm area. Therefore, she could provide useful insights into differences between municipalities and how it affects sustainability progress. As Glocal Sweden is a network specifically designed to help municipalities with their 2030 Agenda work, they could give their overall perspective on how the progress is going and what factors are affecting it.

(20)

13

3.2 Interviews

Phase two consisted of a two-step selection of interview subjects suggested by Hallin & Helin (2018, p.34). In step one, five municipalities were picked, and in step two individuals from each municipality were chosen.

There were three criteria when picking which municipalities to interview. First, they had to have started working with the concept of the 2030 Agenda, but they could be in different stages along the process of fulfilling the Agenda. The assessment of the municipalities’ progress was based on a compilation of municipal initiatives regarding the 2030 Agenda, done by SKR (2019). Although the compilation is based on voluntary information from the municipalities themselves and only 121 of 290 did respond to this compilation, it does give an approximation of the municipality’s current situation. Secondly, the population of the municipalities had to vary in size. Two large municipalities with a population larger than 200 000, two medium-sized municipalities with a population between 50 000 - 100 000 and one smaller municipality with a population 15 000 - 40 000 were chosen. These specific intervals were chosen not to be continuous so that two municipalities would not be too similar in size even though they belonged in two different segments. Last, the municipalities were chosen based on their geographical location, so that they would be spread out all over the country. All of this would increase the chances for the results to represent Swedish municipalities as a whole and minimize the risk of biased insights that could affect the results. For example, neighbouring municipalities could be affected by regional collaboration, which could differ from other regions. Also, certain factors could potentially only affect municipalities of specific population sizes. Miles et al. (1994) emphasize the importance of reliability, validity and usefulness of the data collected, of which the three chosen criteria help increase. The five chosen municipalities were: Gothenburg, Malmö, Norrköping, Umeå and Västervik.

In each municipality, interviews were held in three different segments of the organisation. This was done to further strengthen the reliability and validity of collected insights and to get a useful overview of the whole organization. To get a political view of how the process and progress of the 2030 Agenda were implemented in the governance documents, we interviewed one person in the city council or the executive board, which will henceforth be referenced by the general title of politician. A person titled strategist or in other ways responsible for the 2030 Agenda progress was the second person chosen in each municipality. The third person chosen was from an operational office or municipal corporation where the work with the 2030 Agenda had been implemented or where sustainability work was prominent in their daily actions. The operational office or municipal corporation section chosen was proposed by the politician or the strategist or both persons interviewed, as they have further insights into their own organization which we cannot obtain on all municipalities interviewed due to time constraints. This could potentially influence the results as there is a risk that the other representatives of the municipalities could have chosen a person with a similar view and opinions as themselves. However, if that was the case, relevant observations about how the Agenda is being implemented in daily activities could still be done, therefore that risk is seen as small.

Altogether 13 interviews were conducted in this phase which was believed to provide saturation in insights. One interview with Norrköping and one with Västervik, both with administration

(21)

14

sections, were not able to be conducted due to lack of time during the COVID-19 pandemic for the employees in those sections. Each interview subject was provided with intended interview questions (appendix 1 or 2) one week ahead of the interview since the topics and questions of interest would benefit from reflection by the subjects. Most questions provided were covered during the interview, but since the questions were broad, it gave the interview subject much room for his or her own interpretation of the questions, the topics discussed could, therefore, vary a lot between interviews.

The interview subjects got to choose between conducting the interview over the phone or via Skype. The subjects choose the time and date. Each interview was recorded so that we could focus on being present in the interview and have material for transcription later. The interviews lasted for approximately 60 minutes, and we asked the subjects to try to sit privately, so there would not be any disturbances. Studies show that there is not much difference in how people reply in an interview done by phone compared to an in-person interview (Hallin & Helin, 2018). Every interview subject in phase two is treated anonymously to increase the chances of honest answers where the subject does not have to feel obligations to her or his organization.

3.3 Analysis

A thematic analysis approach was used where insights were grouped to topics gathered from both the literature study and findings in the empirical data. In accordance with Hallin and Helin (2018, p.75-76), a thematic analysis is best suited for this type of exploratory study. Each interview was recorded and transcribed, which Hallin and Helin (2018, p.72) say provides an opportunity for initial analysis work to be done. The data was analysed municipality by municipality, profession by profession and also within each municipality to find similarities and differences from all these perspectives. Insights from each municipality are presented first, to give a view of where they are in their process, and also showcase any major differences in views of that process. This part is useful for municipalities to use when wanting to compare their progress with others. Next, differences and similarities from all segments and between municipalities are presented. Insights were grouped differently in this part as there were other topics that proved valuable to present. Then insights from the prestudy were added to this part, to increase validity and reliability. Each group was prioritised to make sure that the most valuable insights were presented. This second part presents a collected view of what factors affect the implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda.

3.4 Methodology criticism

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic two, of the fifteen planned interviews could not be conducted, it also affected the time frame to which we could not secure triangulation by checking collected data with a third except for the ones in our pre-study. We tried to maintain triangulation by having multiple sources in our literature study.

(22)

15

There is always a risk with having semi-structured interviews since the interview could get off-topic and that it could be a discrepancy with the interviews since none of the interviews is conducted in the same way. In order to get reliable replies, we did our best not to influence our interview subjects with insights from previous interviews, although sometimes when the subject had not talked about a topic of interest, we could lead that person there to get their view of the matter. That could, of course, affect the result slightly, but the insights gathered were still their own opinions as we tried to minimize giving away what other replicants had answered previous to their own answer.

A few of the interview subjects struggled to maintain a sustainability perspective and did instead only focus on the environmental aspects. Although that itself is a valuable insight, these people could sometimes have given answers only related to environmental work without us realizing. There is a risk that we have interpreted the replies from the interview subjects in a way that was not intended from the subject. The aspiration was to minimize this by independently processing the empirical data collected to see if we came to the same conclusions. Where differences were found, we discussed them, re-listened to the interview and together came to a way of handling this specific situation.

Some of the interview subjects had only been in their position for a year or so and did not have a broad knowledge of previous sustainability work in the municipality. Interviewing these people gave us an understanding of how well the organisation is on passing on previous knowledge and experience but made it more challenging to assess previous sustainability work.

Since the interviews were conducted in Swedish and then translated into English, there is a chance that the essence of what the interviewee meant has slightly changed. That also means that translations of quotations will cause a certain change from the original statement. It is almost impossible to do an absolute translation since we are not professional translators.

3.5 Research ethics

To ensure that research ethics were followed; all interview subjects were informed about the purpose of the study, that everything they told us would be treated confidentially and only for the purpose of this study. Every interview subject also volunteered themselves to be interviewed. All our interview subjects are treated with anonymity to protect them from personal judgement since this study focuses on structural and organisational factors and not on the individuals.

We did our best to maintain impartiality in all of our interviews and also while reading and using scientific articles. All of our sources are referred to using the APA referral system to ensure correct handling.

(23)

16

4 STUDY OF MUNICIPALITIES

In the empirical analysis, five municipalities are part of the study, and they are Gothenburg, Malmö, Norrköping, Umeå and Västervik. In each of the municipalities, three segments have been interviewed, and the different segments have been given the titles; Politician, Strategist and Operational office. The politician segment includes people who work in the city council or the executive board. The strategist segment includes a person titled strategist or in other ways responsible for the 2030 Agenda progress. The operational office segment has an exception for Umeå, where instead a municipal corporation was interviewed which has different preconditions compared to an operational office, therefore, is called “corporation”. Note that no operational offices were interviewed in either Norrköping or Västervik.

4.1 Comparison within each municipality

Here follow empirical data and analysis from each municipality presented separately. The three segments in each municipality are analysed together to understand the different municipalities work done in association with the 2030 Agenda and sustainability work in general.

4.1.1 Gothenburg

Gothenburg has done several evaluations and mappings of their activities and governance documents in how they stand in comparison to the 2030 Agenda. The strategist points out that Gothenburg seems to be in line with the 2030 Agenda in both their activities and governance documents and states that they have a high ambition level linked to sustainability and that they want to be a leader in climate and gender equality related issues, but it is not linked to the 2030 Agenda. However, according to the strategist, none of these activities has been evaluated further to check if what Gothenburg is doing now is enough to achieve the goals of the Agenda.

Gothenburg’s primary focus when working towards sustainability is focused around the environmental aspects and on environmental issues and not the Agenda 2030. As stated by the politician that “we have no pronounced Agenda 2030 program in any way”. That is confirmed by the strategist that says that they “do not have any stated connection to the global goals or set

an ambition level”. Contradictory, the strategist says that some state-owned companies, the

environmental administration and the municipal council have been commissioned to develop new climates and environmental programs that should be linked to the 2030 Agenda. The municipality’s annual report also has the 2030 Agenda included. All this makes it unclear what role the 2030 Agenda actually has in the municipality.

Instead of using the 2030 Agenda, Gothenburg put high hopes to their new environment and climate program to be a sufficient solution for their sustainability problems. As their politician stated it has three general perspectives, which are nature, climate and the human and states that “The new environmental and climate program should link to all sustainability dimensions”. During the interviews, it is unclear if the new program will take social and economic factors into

(24)

17

account as well. Since the operational office that developed the plan says that it primarily focuses on ecological dimensions and that the other dimensions are only linked in association to the ecological ones.

Gothenburg does not have any designated person or group to oversee or work primarily with the 2030 Agenda issues designated from a political decision. Nevertheless, it exists a workgroup that works with Agenda questions, and according to the strategist, the workgroup was formed because there was an internal and external pressure to work with the Agenda and not because of any political directives.

4.1.1.1. Knowledge and interest

There is a disparity in views of existing political interest regarding the 2030 Agenda. The politician thinks that political interest has been a success factor in their sustainability work but that their many different strategies in the municipality have been a problem. The operational office and strategist state that there is a lack of political interest and that there is a need for more involvement from the political side to further the sustainability work being done. All departments state that political interest and leadership is needed in the future processes to reach sustainability and the operational office elaborates and says that their challenge lies in political acceptance and that the sustainability process must expedite. The operational office states that they have difficulties in working with sustainability in the long term because there are a lot of sharp short term goals in the municipality right now where results need to be met at a very short term and they do not have time to assess the solutions in a sustainable holistic manner.

None of the persons interviewed has received any formal training or been given information about the 2030 Agenda of what they remember, instead, they have by their own interest looked up information or learned about it over time.

4.1.1.2. Internal and external collaboration

Cross-sectional collaboration is mentioned as a big challenge for Gothenburg by both the strategist and the operational office when working with sustainability. The strategist sees that the mapping is done in association with the 2030 Agenda, and it can be used as a communication tool and as a common language in the municipality when doing collaborations since everyone has common goals if they all use the 2030 Agenda. The operational office believes that working with the 2030 Agenda should be self-evident since it is essential for collaborations, but a management system connected to the 2030 Agenda is needed for it to have an impact. However, the strategist states that collaboration in such a big organisation as Gothenburg can sometimes be a very time-consuming task.

All departments state that external collaboration is vital in their work and that they have a lot of different collaboration partners and that it is important to work towards the common goals. The municipality of Gothenburg does not have many collaboration partners with other municipalities according to the politician. However, they are part of a few national and international networks that are mainly set around climate change and the environmental aspects of sustainability. The

(25)

18

politician sees the main advantage of external collaboration is a way to get financial resources, and the operational office sees it as being opportunities to get more knowledge and compare strategies. It is interesting to note that the workgroup centred around the 2030 Agenda made an active decision not to be part of Glocal Sweden in 2018 because they just had a change in political leadership that year.

4.1.1.3. Difficulties

Both the politician and strategist say that Gothenburg has problems with there being too many target documents and conflicting targets in Gothenburg's governance process. The strategist says that there is a need to create more synergies and work more cross-sectionally in the municipality and that the 2030 Agenda could be a good tool to use for that and to reduce the number of target conflicts in the municipality, but that they do not have those tools now.

4.1.2 Malmö

Malmö took part in a research project between 2010-2013, who brought out what significant challenges Malmö was facing, which was mainly the social aspects. According to the politician, that served as a first step in working with the 2030 Agenda, it is seen as a continuation on existing sustainability work in Malmö. In 2015 Malmö implemented the 2030 Agenda and made a local version of it, and since 2017 the global goals have been integrated into the budget. Malmö has mapped the governance documents and compared them to the 2030 Agenda, and in 2020 they continued that work and made another mapping of 12-13 operational offices in what they are doing and how long they have come in their work with the 2030 Agenda.

When Malmö decided to introduce the 2030 Agenda into their governance in 2015, they formed a secretariat from a political initiative that oversaw the process, and it was a driving force in the adjustment period towards implementing the 2030 Agenda. It was later disbanded to make it less person bound and get a functional focus throughout the municipality instead. This was done along with a re-organisation which, as a consequence, caused Malmö to fall one year behind in their work with the Agenda. With the new organisation, new structures and new managers needed to find their places, according to the strategist.

The strategist says that when the 2030 Agenda is adequately implemented in the daily operation, it is possible to work more long term with sustainability in the municipality and become less dependent on the political leadership since everyone is already working in the same direction. Moreover, the strategist states that implementing it into the regular control and management systems leads to a wake-up call, that the 2030 Agenda can be adjusted and implemented in all of the organisation. Although, according to the operational office, there has been no change so far, in their operation to work long term since the introduction of the 2030 Agenda. The operational office is working in the spirit of the 2030 Agenda more than they are towards any specific goals or indicators or both for monitoring, they view it as a framework to work towards sustainability in a holistic perspective and to help increase collaboration.

Implementation and Monitoring of the 2030 Agenda in Swedish Municipalities