“Learning is our Achilles heel”. Conditions for long-term environmental policy integration in Swedish regional development programming

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore how the capacity to integrate environmental sustainability in Swedish regional development programming has evolved over time, with particular focus on what facilitates and restricts change in different stages of implementation. The study builds on focus-group and individual interviews in four Swedish regions carried out in 2005 and 2011. The results suggest temporary and partial rather than enduring and substantial environmental policy integration (EPI). In 2005 the main challenges were to allocate support, focus and priority beyond the national policy rhetoric of regional sustainable development, to identify regional applications beyond singular "pockets of good practice" and to spread ownership and engagement for EPI from specific ambassadors to organizational mainstreaming. In 2011 we find evidence of a more mainstreamed approach of regional sustainable development but with new challenges of policy diffusion and sectorisation as well as a strong sense of projectification. There is a need to develop arenas and processes for intersectoral exchange, interaction and learning to achieve a more systematic change -which is, in essence, what policy integration is all about.

Policy Integration for Sustainable Transport Development : Case Studies of Two Swedish Regions

“…This integrated policymaking offers the possibility to meet other actors, question one's own original standpoints, get new ideas and coordinate the possible solutions available, find common gains and make the solutions coherent from many perspectives (i.e. Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014). In this way it is possible to at least make informed choices and choose the most likely sustainable measure(s) available.…”

“…Regional development used to be a national policy, but in correlation with the increasing regional self-government it has increasingly been transferred to the regional level (Andersson et al, 2008). Since 1998 sustainable development has been a formal policy objective for regional development policy (Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014). There is no hierarchical relationship between the local and regional levels of government, which is why the strong municipalities still are major actors in regional policymaking (Stegmann McCallion, 2007).…”

“…The sectorization of the national government is seen as necessary to enable specialization concerning complex issues (SGOR, 2007). However, this sectorization is not regarded as positive for all issues, especially not for those that need interventions from several sectors at the same time; in addition, it is regarded as a less positive model for decision-making on local and regional levels than on the national level (SGOR, 2007;Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014).…”

“…Dovlén, Hilding-Rydevik, & Khakee, 2008;Mobjörk, 2010;Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014;Storbjörk et al, 2009). Conclusions have been that there is lack of integration between policy sectors, which obstructs sustainable development implementation (Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014). I will continue this discussion by focusing on policy integration processes to manage the transport system towards sustainability in two Swedish regions.…”

“…Research on regional policymaking and sustainable development has in Sweden been primarily focused on how sustainability is framed and implemented in regional development policy (see, e.g. Dovlén, Hilding-Rydevik, & Khakee, 2008;Mobjörk, 2010;Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014;Storbjörk et al, 2009). Conclusions have been that there is lack of integration between policy sectors, which obstructs sustainable development implementation (Storbjörk & Isaksson, 2014).…”