 And next up we have Nina Weitz, a researcher here in Stockholm, and as I said, Nina is ahead of the game and has started looking at implementation prospects in two countries, Sweden and Sambia. So Nina, please share your findings. Thank you, Åsa. Yes. So in January 2016, countries including both government, civil society and business will have this very ambitious set of goals and targets to turn into action. All countries will need to act, both at home and to support goals achievement in other countries. So what does this actually mean, and how will they go about doing it? One issue is coherence. We've heard about the more comprehensive scope of the SDGs compared to the MDGs, and this more comprehensive scope is very much needed. But SDGs also cover so many diverse but interlinked policy areas, we will need to pay special attention to coherence. The OECD has proposed to successfully implement the POST 2015 agenda. We need to ensure coherence between global goals and national contexts, between international agendas and processes, between economic, social and environmental policies, and also between various sources of finance, and we'll also need to ensure coherence between the actions of multiple actors, both within a country and across country borders. So last November, I took a trip to Los Saca in Sambia together with a researcher from one of our IRF members, the Open Society Initiative for South Africa. And our mission was to explore some of these coherence issues. First, the globally proposed SDGs were in line with the regional and the national development agenda for sustainable agriculture and food security, and second to see how Sambia had actually translated the vision into action. Then this year, SEI has set out to explore how the global targets would actually translate to Swedish context, and which targets that would be most relevant for Sweden to implement and how far off targets Sweden currently stands. So here's what we found out. In Sambia, it turns out that the regional vision, the common African position on SDGs, is well aligned with the UN's proposal, both in terms of the priorities for food security and nutrition and also ways in meeting them. But when it comes to Sambia's national vision for 2030, the picture is a little bit muddier. Both the UN proposal and Sambia's vision 2030 prioritized increasing agriculture productivity, access to productive resources, extension services and machinery, and they both set targets for protecting the resource base and ecosystems. But then they diverged. Sambia's vision 2030 puts strong emphasis on increasing land under cultivation and irrigation, and also in making the agriculture sector more export-led. The UN, on the other hand, puts strong emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices and food systems, and on combating malnutrition and hunger. And when we then looked at how the vision is being put into action, we found that the outcomes are even less aligned with the aspiration. Despite strong per capita GDP growth in Sambia, poverty is actually increasing. In 2013, almost half of the population were undernourished or short of food. The government's focus has been on boosting the exports and farm outputs, and put particularly strong focus on the country's main crop, which is maize. This has benefited large-scale farmers in certain areas, but smallholder farmers have sometimes struggled to access the finance they need to increase productivity. Infrastructure limitations and poor access to domestic and international markets also make up major barriers to progress. Lifting the heavy subsidies on maize farming could encourage more diverse and sustainable crop production, but would be very difficult politically. Implementing the SDGs then would be truly transformative to Sambia's agriculture sector and for food security, nutrition, poverty reduction and equality. But as we can see, the road from the current realities to the SDGs' aspirational vision is a long way and far from smooth. So this highlights the challenge of setting both realistic and actionable goals, as well as the importance of considering the political context in which goals are set. It also raises the questions of what we can expect from a global framework. Is it there to inspire or should it actually guide countries through a change process? The UN has stressed that action and national ownership need to be the first priority if the SDGs are to be meaningful and have an impact, but at the same time the UN has paid very little effort to encourage a translation from the global goals to country contexts where action will actually happen. In Sweden then, we explored exactly this, how the SDGs would translate to a specific country context. We wanted to see how far Sweden had to go to meet each target and what policy gaps might need to be filled. Once again, neither question has proved as simple as it sounds. The first stumbling block we met was the question of zero-tolerance targets. So while the SDGs set a lot of relative targets, for example in having the proportion of people who suffer from hunger, the SDGs have a lot of targets for universal access and complete elimination. While in one sense this is inevitable and the SDGs are in part there to finish the work of the SDGs and also we can't leave people behind. But as a result, the SDGs give very little guidance of what action is actually required by countries. For example, how far off is Sweden on reaching a target for women's full participation and equal opportunities for leadership? And can corruption be completely eliminated? In both gender equality and low corruption levels, Sweden is a world leader and has strong policies in place. But senior management positions still tend to be held by men. The private sector has less than 30% women on boards and management teams and we have seen a number of corruption scandals in the past years. So overall we found that all 17 goals and a majority of the 169 targets are relevant for Sweden in the sense that they address economic, social and environmental issues that are relevant to achieve sustainable development within Sweden and where there is room for improvement. Another issue in assessing the distance to goals achievement is what indicators to use. And we first tried to use the indicators that have been proposed for monitoring the SDGs. But we soon learned that they didn't shed light on the bits and pieces that would actually move Sweden closer to goals achievement. For example, goal 10 is on reducing social and economic inequality. The proposed global indicators suggest that Sweden is one of the world's most equal societies which is true. But it doesn't show that inequality rose faster here than in any other OECD country between 1985 and 2010. So it's just an area where Sweden can sit back. We think that how Sweden compares internationally is secondary to the need to reverse negative trends. And Sweden will need to meet the SDG target. In this case, it will need new responses that target specifically the elderly, the unemployed, non-EU immigrants and single-parent families who are falling behind as income gaps are widening. We need to avoid the global indicators guide the priorities for action. Our strong impression is that countries will need to make their own unique and context-specific interpretations of what is needed to achieve the global goals and targets. Besides raising the chances of achieving the sustainable development vision, this can also help countries to take ownership of the SDGs. Another key insight from our interpretation exercise is that working out what needs to be implemented at country level quickly becomes political. The post-2015 agenda is entering a space of existing policy and politics and will require debate and political decisions to be made. So while the global indicators will help monitor global progress, countries will need their own reporting systems adapted to their national targets. Among other things, this will help citizens, holder governments and business and other stakeholders to account. So summarizing what we learned, the first reflection is, as we saw in Sambia, that while we can spend endless energy on negotiating the perfect global vision, we need to think concretely about what change countries can make towards achieving the fundamental aim of the agenda. Currently, there seems to be a disconnect between what stakeholders expect the SDGs to be, an action agenda, and the capacity of the intergovernmental system to actually guide and steer change. Secondly, accountability and monitoring at the global level are of course important, but to get meaningful action by countries, the global goals and monitoring systems need to be nationally adapted, and this will require a nationally owned interpretation process. So if the SDGs framework is to make change, the target's national relevance and action must be prioritized over global reporting. Thirdly, the post-2015 agenda is entering a space already crowded with policies and politics at both the national and international levels, and whatever we do to implement the agenda, it will need to integrate and resonate with existing policies and processes. That includes not just policies that affect things here at home, but also how they impact the rest of the world. So it's therefore very good to see that the Swedish government is now integrating SDG implementation into the relaunch of their policy for global development, and we're also looking forward to the Swedish and other countries' government to start exploring how it will take, or what it will take, to achieve the SDGs domestically, and then we can prepare ourselves to hit the ground running in January 2016.