EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 84 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Sweden Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1 Reporting of the FRMPs 1.2 Assessment of the FRMPs 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1 Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2 Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.3 Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4 Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs 2.5 Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives

3.1 Focus of objectives 3.2 Specific and measurable objectives 3.3 Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4 Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5 Process for setting the objectives 3.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1 Cost of measures 4.2 Funding of measures 4.3 Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4 Measures and objectives 4.5 Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6 Prioritisation of measures 4.7 Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8 Progress of implementation of measures 4.9 Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10 Specific groups of measures 4.11 Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12 Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.13 Coordination with the Water Framework Directive

4.14 Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures 5. Consideration of climate change 5.1 Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6. Cost-benefit analysis 6.1 Good practices and areas for further development 7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1 Competent authorities 7.2 Public information and consultation 7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders 7.4 Effects of consultation 7.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment 7.6 Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of Annex A tables & figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: name & location Measure details: objectives

Measure details: authorities Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMPs for Sweden. It assesses the FRMPs and Member States reporting to the European Commission in 2016. Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures ·Selected FRMPs: Sweden has reported 18 FRMPS, one for each APSFR. Five FRMPs have been selected for the assessment to provide geographical coverage across the country. The following APSFR and Units of Management (UoMs) are covered in the assessment of Sweden: oÄlvsbyn (SE1A8932) in the Bothnian Bay UoM (SE1); oFalun (SE2A6504) in the Bothnian Sea UoM (SE2); oStockholm (SE3A0336) in the North Baltic Sea UoM (SE3); oKristianstad (SE4A2980) in the South Baltic Sea UoM (SE4);

oKarlstad (SE5A5704) in the Skagerrak and Kattegat UoM (SE5).



Overview Figure 1 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports Sweden has designated ten UoMs under the FD. These ten UoMs correspond to the ten River Basin Districts (RBDs) that Sweden designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Of these ten UoMs, five have large territories with exclusively national jurisdiction, and five are smaller transboundary UoMs of which four are joint UoMs with Norway and one with Finland. The transboundary UoMs have a limited number of inhabitants, and, with the exception of the Torne River UoM (SE1TO), do not have any APSFRs. Sweden has designated 18 Areas of Potentially Significant Floods Risk (APSFRs) across six UoMs. Sweden prepared 18 FRMPs, one for each APSFR. The FRMPs were prepared by the county administrations in which the APSFR is located. All FRMPs in Sweden were established as regional plans by the County Administrative Boards by 22 December 2015. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) oversaw a process of national coordination for the FRMPs; however, there are differences in the approach to the plans – for example in terms of number and structure of objectives, detail provided on measures and extent of active involvement of stakeholders – across the County administrations. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Sweden, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. Table 1 Overview of UoMs in Sweden UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML reported PDF Reported SE1 BOTHNIAN BAY 2 Yes Yes SE1TO BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT) 1 Yes Yes SE2 BOTHNIAN SEA 4 Yes Yes SE3 NORTH BALTIC SEA 4 Yes Yes SE4 SOUTH BALTIC SEA 2 Yes Yes SE5 SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT 5 Yes Yes SENO1102 BOTHNIAN SEA (INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN TRONDELAGSFYLKENE - SWEDEN) - No No SENO1103 BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN NORDLAND - SWEDEN) - No No SENO1104 BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN TROMS - SWEDEN) - No No SENO5101 SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT (INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN GLOMMA - SWEDEN) - No No TOTAL 18 The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: · https://www.msb.se/sv/Forebyggande/Naturolyckor/Oversvamning/Oversvamningsdirektivet/Steg-3-Riskhanteringsplaner/ Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met. ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met.

·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”. ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion. Table 2Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence Sweden has set four national objectives. The FRMPs have then set more detailed objectives of three types: specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives (not all FRMPs assessed have set all three types, however). FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence Sweden’s four national objectives address the potential adverse consequences of floods. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding No evidence No objectives to reduce the likelihood of flooding were identified among the national objectives or the objectives of the five FRMPs assessed (though measures in the FRMPs address this). ...to non-structural initiatives Strong evidence Three of the five FRMPs assessed include knowledge objectives to improve the information base on flood risks. FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence One of the four national objectives states that human health shall not be significantly affected by floods. ...economic activity Strong evidence One of the four national objectives states that economic activities of major societal value shall not be exposed to long disruption caused by floods. ...environment Strong evidence One of the four national objectives states that the environment and natural values shall not be affected by floods. ...cultural heritage Strong evidence One of the four national objectives states that cultural heritage shall be protected from floods. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence Sweden has reported 138 individual measures and 210 aggregated measures, for a total of 348 measures, across all six UoMs where FRMPs were prepared. All five FRMPs assessed have identified measures. ...prioritised Some evidence Sweden has reported the priority for over 90 % of its measures (320 of 348 measures). Two of the five FRMPs assessed (for Falun and Älvsbyn) refer to the prioritisation of measures, and the Plan for Älvsbyn provides information on the methods used for prioritisation. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits Some evidence Only one of the five FRMPs assessed – the plan for Älvsbyn – refers to cost-benefit analysis; however, this FRMP only makes a brief reference without indicating if or at what stage such an analysis was carried out. ...flood extent Strong evidence Flood extent was considered in the PFRA and FHRM stages, which were used in the preparation of FRMPs assessed. ...flood conveyance No evidence No reference was found in the five FRMPs assessed of consideration of flood conveyance. ...water retention Some evidence One of the five FRMPs assessed has an objective that refers to wetlands for water retention. Across the FRMPs, however, few measures for natural water retention measures (NWRM) were identified, notably in the one for Älvsbyn. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Some evidence In at least two of the five FRMPs assessed, the environmental objectives of the WFD were considered. ...spatial planning/land use Some evidence Three of the five FRMPs assessed include measures for spatial planning: one example is a guidance document to be prepared for planning in proximity to flood-prone rivers. ...nature conservation Some evidence Two of the five FRMPs assessed indicate that nature conservation was considered in the measures (though one FRMP states that no major negative impacts were identified); moreover, reducing adverse consequences to the environment is one of the four national objectives. ...navigation/port infrastructure Some evidence One FRMP, for Falun, refers to consideration of navigation and port infrastructure in a measure. ...likely impact of climate change Some evidence Sweden incorporated climate impacts in the APSFR and FHRM stages, which were used to develop the objectives and measures of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the FRMPs assessed provide limited information on potential climate change impacts on floods. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Some evidence Sweden has good cooperation with Finland and Norway on water management. In one UoM, Sweden worked with Finland on joint mapping (for the transboundary APSFR on Torne River). The FRMPs assessed, however, provide few details on international coordination. Coordination ensured with WFD Some evidence The five FRMPs assessed provide limited information on coordination with the WFD. Active involvement of interested parties Some evidence All five FRMPs assessed included mechanisms to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders. The information provided, however, varies. Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the Swedish FRMPs assessed.



Table 3 Good practices in the Swedish FRMPs Topic area Good practices identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. Sweden has good cooperation with neighbouring Finland and Norway on water management and carried out joint mapping with Finland for a shared APSFR. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. Sweden has an articulated system of objectives, with four overarching objectives set at national level and three types of objectives – specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives – set in the FRMPs. The objectives in the FRMPs contain specific and measurable elements. Planning/implementing of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. One of the five FRMPs assessed provides specific and measurable elements for its measures, such as specific locations. Whereas it is not clear if the ‘specific’ objectives set in the FRMPs will be achieved when the measures linked to them are completed, across all five FRMPs assessed, measures are linked to objectives. Public consultation While the information available on consultation and active involvement of stakeholders varies, it is clear that the preparation of the FRMP for Karlstad included a variety of mechanisms for outreach, including the creation of Joint Flooding Cooperation Groups, for the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on the impacts of public consultation and active involvement of stakeholders on the final plans. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Swedish FRMPs assessed. Table 4 Areas for further development in the Swedish FRMPs Topic area Areas for further development identified Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. While all five FRMPs assessed provide summary maps and text of their APSFRs and FHRMs, not all provide internet links to more detailed online maps; moreover, some of the links provided do not work. The FRMPs refer only to fluvial floods (these were the only type addressed in the prior steps of the cycle). Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives. The five FRMPs assessed lack information on the cost of measures and only one provides information on funding sources. The FRMPs assessed provide little information on natural water retention measures and few discuss interactions between their measures and nature conservation in noticeable extent. Although Sweden has reported priorities for over 90 % of its measures, the FRMPs themselves provide little information on prioritisation and do not indicate the method used to determine priorities. Use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed. Only one of the five FRMPs assessed refers to the use of cost-benefit analysis, without indicating if indeed or at what stage this was used. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. The FRMPs provide little information on potential climate impacts and to a very limited extent describe how such potential impacts were considered in the selection and design of their measures. Coordination with national climate change policy does not appear to have taken place systematically. Flood risk governance. Three of the five FRMPs assessed do not indicate if a Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken. Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide limited information on coordination with the WFD and with Sweden’s River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The five FRMPs assessed vary in terms of the types of objectives set, extent of information on measures, and the extent of public consultation and active involvement of stakeholders. Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·To be able to assess progress, the FRMPs should provide specific and measurable information on their measures. ·Information on estimated costs and funding sources, information on priorities across measures and the methods used for prioritisation should be provided in the FRMPs.

·Consider making greater use of natural water retention measures across its FRMPs. ·The FRMPs should indicate how the costs and benefits of measures were considered in the selection and prioritisation of methods. ·All FRMPs should undergo a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedure, if relevant, information on the results should be provided in the final Plans; ·Sweden should reinforce coordination between its FRMPs and RBMPs. ·Sweden should promote the use of common approaches across the FRMPs where this adds value , e.g. in areas including the prioritisation of measures, the identification of specific and measurable information on measures, coordination and synergy with the preparation of the RBMPs and the approach to public consultation and active involvement of stakeholders. ·Pluvial and coastal flooding should be addressed in the next FRMPs depending on the findings of the second PFRA. ·It will be important to ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. ·How potential impacts of climate change were considered should be reflected stronger in the second cycle, including systematic coordination with national climate change adaptation strategies. · 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1Reporting of the FRMPs Sweden has reported 18 FRMPs, each prepared by a County administration. Each FRMP covers a single APSFR. Sweden did not report any overarching plan or policy document. Sweden did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allowed Member States to make use of previous FRMP for the first cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 1.2Assessment of the FRMPs Sweden has reported 18 FRMPS, of which five have been assessed: the FRMPs for assessment were chosen to provide geographic coverage across the UoMs. The following FRMPs were assessed: Table 5 UoMs assessed in Sweden UoM code UoM Name FRMP assessed (and APSFR code) SE1 BOTHNIAN BAY Älvsbyn (SE1A8932) SE2 BOTHNIAN SEA Falun (SE2A6504) SE3 NORTH BALTIC SEA Stockholm (SE3A0336) SE4 SOUTH BALTIC SEA Kristianstad (SE4A2980) SE5 SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT Karlstad (SE5A5704) Note: the name of the FRMP refers to the name of the main urban area addressed by the plan, not the County whose County Administrative Board prepared the plan.



2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment All five FRMPs assessed present the conclusions of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PRFA) as a summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). All FRMPs assessed also contain a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs and an overview of the methodology employed and the results of previous steps. Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide additional, more detailed maps showing flood extent. The FRMP for Falun (SE2A6504) contains maps showing flood extent for 50, 100 and 200-year floods. The FRMPs for Älvsbyn (SE1A8932), Stockholm (SE3A0336) and Karlstad (SE5A5704) all contain additional detailed 100 year flood maps showing sites exposed to flooding. The APSFRs and other flood maps can be viewed on a web portal provided by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) : https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html (a link to this site was not, however, found in the FRMPs themselves). No reference to conveyance routes was found in the FRMPs assessed. The FRMPs indicate that climate change impacts were modelled and incorporated in the PFRA (see section 5). 2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs Sweden has strong bilateral coordination on water management with its neighbours, Finland and Norway. Sweden carried out a joint project with Finland on mapping of risk areas along the Torne River in the Bothnian Bay (International District) UoM (SE1TO): this was carried out as part of an Interreg IV A project, Detailed inundation planning in the lower part of Tornio River. Sweden does not have joint APSFRs with Norway, and neither the FRMPs assessed nor Sweden’s reporting sheets provide information on coordination at the PFRA stage with Norway. 2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps The FRMPs indicate that the PFRA was used to develop the FHR maps, which also drew on further modelling, including of climate change. Both processes were coordinated by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which produced overall reports for both the PFRA and the FHRMs. 2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs The flood hazard and flood risk maps are presented in all of the five FRMPs assessed in maps for each APSFR showing fluvial flood risks. In none of the FRMPs assessed do the FHRMs present risks from pluvial floods, seawater floods, groundwater floods, floods originating from artificial water bearing structures, or floods from no specific sources or more than one source of flooding. According to the assessment of Sweden’s FHRMs, pluvial and coastal floods were not assessed in the FHRMs, separate maps for floods from artificial water bearing structures were produced but these were not included in the FHRMs, and groundwater floods were assessed as not relevant for Sweden. Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in four of the five FRMPs assessed: those for Älvsbyn (SE1A8932); Falun (SE2A6504); Karlstad (SE5A5704) and Stockholm (SE3A0336). As for maps of the APSFRs, some of these links no longer work. The MSB’s web portal provides online FHRMs: · https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html . 2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas As described above, Sweden carried out joint mapping with Finland for the shared APSFR in the Torne UoM (SETO1). 2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps

The five FRMPs assessed and Sweden’s reporting sheets indicate that the FHRMs were used to develop the FRMPs: ·The FHRMs were used to set priorities for flood risk management (including locations and economic activities for protection); ·Specific objectives on flood risk reduction were defined based on the FHRMs; ·In one FRMP assessed (Stockholm), measure types and locations were defined based on the FHRM. The FHRMs were also presented as part of the public consultation process (see section 7). 2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas The FRMP assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMP. The FRMPs did not indicate any changes. For the second cycle, however, Sweden has reviewed and updated the APSFRs. 2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Sweden: ·Flood sources: risks of pluvial and coastal floods are not included. After the assessment of the maps was completed, the Swedish authorities explained that pluvial and coastal floods will be taken into consideration for the second cycle of implementation of the FD. ·Consequences on the environment: Sweden did not report clearly on what the adverse consequences on the environment would be in the mapping of the risk from low probability floods. The second area for further development is partly addressed within the FRMPs assessed: ·As noted above, none of the five FRMPs referred to pluvial and coastal floods and it appears that these had not been incorporated in the FHRMs at the time of the preparation of the plans. ·The five FRMPs assessed have addressed the lack of mapping of adverse consequences on the environment. This has been done with respect to protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites and to contaminated sites (and thus pollution risks), though the information provided varies among the five FRMPs. 2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practice was identified: ·Sweden has good cooperation with neighbouring Finland and Norway on water management and carried out joint mapping with Finland for a shared APSFR. The following areas for further development were identified: ·While all five FRMPs assessed provide summary maps and text of their APSFRs and FHRMs, not all provide more detailed maps or internet links to more detailed online maps; moreover, some of the links provided do not work.

·The FRMPs refer only to fluvial floods, as these were the only type addressed in the prior steps.



3. Setting of Objectives 3.1Focus of objectives The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) set four overarching, nationally defined objectives that have been used as the basis for objective setting in the five FRMPs examined. These objectives are: ·Human health shall not be significantly affected by floods; ·The environment and natural values shall not be significantly affected by floods; ·Cultural heritage shall be protected so that valuable objects and knowledge are not lost by floods; ·Economic activities of major societal value shall not be exposed to long disruption caused by floods. The MSB recommended that FRMPs refine these four national objectives in more detailed objectives across three major types: specific objectives that are measurable and concrete; measure-oriented objectives that specify specific actions to be taken to support the specific objectives; and knowledge objectives that address key uncertainties, also supporting the specific objectives. Table 6 Types of objectives in the Swedish FRMPs FRMP Number of objectives Specific objectives Measure-oriented objectives Knowledge objectives Falun 30 ✓ ✓ ✓ Älvsbyn 9 ✓ Karlstad 16 ✓ ✓ Kristianstad 17 ✓ ✓ ✓ Stockholm 14 ✓ The five FRMPs assessed structure their objectives in terms of the four national objectives. The FRMPs use the structure of three objective ‘types’ in different ways (see Table 6 above): ·The FRMP for Älvsbyn defines nine specific objectives; ·The FRMP for Falun differentiates the four overarching thematic objectives into 30 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives; ·The FRMP for Karlstad presents 16 specific and knowledge objectives but no measure-oriented objectives; ·The FRMP for Kristianstad differentiates the four overarching thematic objectives into 17 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives; ·The FRMP for Stockholm defines 14 specific objectives. Based on both the national objectives and the objectives defined in the FRMPs assessed:

·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods in all five FRMPs assessed; ·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented in some but not all FRMPs; ·The objectives refer to non-structural measures in some but not all FRMPs. 3.2Specific and measurable objectives All five FRMPs define ‘specific objectives’ (using Swedish terminology) that contain specific and measurable elements. Examples include the following objectives from the FRMP for Älvsbyn: ·No cultural heritage objects or areas classified as cultural heritage of national interest shall be permanently damaged due to a flood; ·Electricity distribution installations should not be affected by floods with a 100-year return time. The FRMPs for Falun and Kristianstad also include ‘measure-oriented’ objectives that are linked to measures. For example, the FRMP for Falun has an objective that: by 2018, Falun municipality has established forms of cooperation on flow regulation and preventive measures in the smaller streams of the municipality (examples of preventive measures may be preservation of wetlands and maintenance of streams). The ‘knowledge’ objectives found in the Falun, Karlstad and Kristianstad FRMPs also can be linked to measures. For example, the Karlstad FRMP contains the following objective: There is detailed knowledge of which flow levels in Klarälven and water levels in Vänern that can lead to serious flooding consequences for cultural heritage. All the FRMP objectives set specific aims or actions that can be measured; however, the year of achievement is lacking for almost all objectives, the exception being measure-oriented and knowledge objectives in FRMP Falun. 3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods Sweden’s four national objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences from floods on human health, cultural heritage, the environment and economic activity. 3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding None of the objectives at national level address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding or flood risk, and none of the objectives in the five FRMPs assessed directly address these either. Yet, indirectly the FRMP Falun addresses this in one objective that aims to increase the knowledge about coordinated regulation of the river discharges at the municipally owned dams. 3.5Process for setting the objectives The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency coordinated the identification of the national objectives and, as indicated, provided recommendations for the identification of FRMP objectives. The five FRMPs assessed vary in terms of the extent of information provided on the development of their objectives. The FRMP for Karlstad, notably, refers to the involvement of representatives of municipalities and private stakeholders, as well as academic experts, in the development of the plan, including the objectives. For all five FRMPs, objectives were part of the draft plans provided for public consultation (see section 7). In the modelling of flood for the FHRMs, climate change impacts were included and consequently climate considerations are incorporated in the objectives set. 3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practices were identified:

·Sweden has an articulated system of objectives, with four overarching objectives set at national level and three types of objectives – specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives – set in the FRMPs. ·The objectives in the FRMPs contain specific and measurable elements.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives Sweden has reported 138 individual measures and 210 aggregated measures, for a total of 348 measures, across all six UoMs where FRMPs were prepared (please see tables A1 to A4 in Annex A for further details). The five FRMPs assessed do not provide a definition of individual and aggregated measures. The measures cover all four aspects of flood risk management. Across all six UoMs where FRMPs were prepared: ·162 measures (47 % of the total 348 measures) are for prevention; ·41 measures (12 %) are for protection; ·137 measures (39 %) are for preparedness; ·six measures (2 %) are for recovery and review. In addition, Sweden reported two ‘other’ measures (less than 1 % of the total). The number distribution of measures across the four aspects varies among the UoMs. For example: ·For the North Baltic UoM (SE3), 54 of 79 measures are for prevention (68 % of the total), five are for protection (6 %), 19 are for preparedness (24 %) and one is for recovery and review (1 %) ·For the Bothnian Sea UoM (SE2), 13 of 48 measures (27 % of the total) are for prevention, five are for protection (10 %), 27 are for preparedness (56 %), one is for recovery and review (2 %) and two are other measures (4 %) 4.1Cost of measures The FRMPs assessed do not provide information on the budget. 4.2Funding of measures Only one of five FRMPs assessed provides information on funding: the FRMP for Karlstad provides indications of funding sources for each measure. The most common description is "Within existing budget frames" as most measures refer to actions by the Värmland County administration, which is in charge of the FRMP (costs or budget amounts are not provided, however) . Table 7 Funding of measures Karlstad SE5A5704 Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding Use of public budget (national level) Use of public budget (regional level) ✔ Use of public budget (local level) Private investment EU funds (generic) EU Structural funds EU Solidarity Fund EU Cohesion funds EU CAP funds International funds

Source: FRMPs 4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures One of the five FRMPs assessed – the plan for Stockholm (SE3A0336) – provides a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·Where they are to be achieved, ·How they are to be achieved, and ·By when they are expected to be achieved. This FRMP identifies facilities and sites of societal concern (such as cultural heritage sites, municipal buildings, utilities, key roads and nature reserves) and sets out measures to address their flood risks: one measure, for example, develops a vulnerability analysis for the impact of flooding on a school building in Huddinge Municipality. The other FRMPs, however, provide less detail. The following table lists all the locations indicated for Swedish measures: Table 8 Location of measures Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 International National RBD/UoM Sub-basin APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Water body level ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Object level ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs 4.4Measures and objectives In all the FRMPs assessed, each measure is linked to one of the FRMP’s objectives. As noted in section 3, some of the FRMPs assessed have set measure-oriented objectives and knowledge objectives: for these, the objectives should be achieved when the related measures are carried out. It is not clear, however, if the ‘specific’ objectives set in the FRMPs will be achieved when the measures linked to them are completed. 4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures Sweden has reported the location of all 348 measures across the six UoMs with FRMPs (see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A). This information has been aggregated into the following categories: ·The majority of measures, 197 out of the 348 reported, are located at APSFR level (57 % of the total); ·93 of the 348 measures (27 %) are at local level; ·40 measures (11 %) are in a specific location such as a specific facility or part of a river; ·eight measures (2 %) are at river catchment level;

·And for 10 measures (3 %), another location is given. The FRMPs assessed also provide varying degrees of detail on the location of measures. For example, the FRMP for Stockholm provides detailed maps to indicate the location of some measures. 4.6Prioritisation of measures Sweden has reported the priority for 320 of its 348 measures (see Table A7 in Annex A): ·20 measures (6 % of the total) are reported as having critical priority; ·61 measures (18 %) have very high priority; ·139 measures (40 %) have high priority; ·88 measures (25 %) have moderate priority; ·12 measures (3 %) have low priority; ·For 28 measures (8 %), no priority is indicated. Only one of the five FRMPs, however, clearly refers to a prioritisation of measures. The FRMP for Falun includes a section on priorities. Neither this FRMP nor the other four assessed provides information on how the prioritisation of measures was established. Sweden has reported the timetable for all 348 measures (see Table A9 in Annex A). This information has been used to identify the completion dates for the measures: ·66 measures (19 % of the total) are indicated as ongoing; ·one measure (less than 1 %) is indicated as being completed in 2015; ·40 measures (11 %) are indicated for 2016; ·54 measures (16 %) for 2016; ·43 measures (12 %) for 2018; ·38 measures (11 %) for 2019; ·17 measures (5 %) for 2020; ·74 measures (21 %) for 2021;

·4 measures (1 %) for dates beyond 2021 (either 2026 or 2028); ·11 measures (3 %) have other or unclear dates indicated; Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on the timetable for the implementation of the measures: ·The FRMPs for Falun and Karlstad indicate the timetables provided for all measures, with completion dates that range from 2017 to 2021 (the FRMPs indicate that the completion dates vary according to the size and complexity of the measures) ·The FRMP for Stockholm provides a timetable and completion dates for some measures (for most of the measures where a completion date is indicated, it is 2019) ·A timetable is provided in the FRMP for Älvsbyn as well, yet with most measures specified as “ongoing” No information on the timetable was found in the FRMPs of Kristianstad. As the FRMPs are at APSFR level, while Sweden’s reporting is at UoM level, it has not been possible to compare the timetables of the two. 4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures Sweden has indicated the level of responsibility for all 348 measures reported (see Table A11 in Annex A): ·For the great majority of measures (298 out of 348, 86 %), either municipal or county governments are responsible; ·For 20 measures (6 % of the total), a private company is responsible (a chemicals company and utility companies are mentioned); ·For 20 measures (6 %), a transport authority is responsible; ·For seven measures (2 %), other types of authorities are responsible. In the FRMPs assessed, the County Administrative Boards themselves are generally indicated as main authority responsible for implementation of most measures. The FRMPs to a smaller or larger extent also include measures under the responsibility of municipalities or municipal companies and state authorities, such state transport authorities. As an example of the smaller extent, the FRMP Kristianstad indicates that it focuses on “actions undertaken within the county administrative board's own organisation”; still, this plan includes some measures under the responsibility of Kristianstad municipality. As an example of a larger extent, FRMP Karlstad includes measures under the responsibility of municipalities, companies and other actors as well as measures to be carried out by the County Board itself. For the Falun FRMP, the municipality and the municipal Water and Sanitation Company are responsible for most of the measures. 4.8Progress of implementation of measures Sweden has reported the progress of implementation for all measures (see Annex Table A13): ·The great majority of measures reported – 217 out of 348 (62 %) – were indicated as not started; ·The remaining measures, 131 (38 %) were indicated as progress ongoing. Two of the five FRMPs assessed provide some information on the progress of their measures. The FRMP for Karlstad indicates the progress of many measures: for example, a series of measures carried out by the Karlstad Municipality were ongoing, including measures launched under a municipal flood preparedness plan in 2010. This FRMP also indicated that other municipalities had measures ongoing. Likewise, the FRMP for Kristianstad indicates measures undertaken by the Municipality of Kristianstad as ongoing.

4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented. While Sweden has provided information for 20 measures, it appears that many of these entries refer to Swedish legislation; nonetheless, it appears that seven measures are associated to the implementation of the Seveso Directive (see Annex A). The five FRMPs assessed also provide references to other EU legislation: The FRMP for Älvsbyn includes references to the Habitats Directive and the WFD; the FRMPs for Karlstad and Falun include references to the WFD; the FRMP for Stockholm cites the Bathing Water Directive and the WFD. All five FRMPs assessed refer to the Seveso Directive, though only two the FRMPs for Älvsbyn and Karlstad, indicate that it is relevant for flood measures. 4.10Specific groups of measures Spatial planning/land use measures are included in three of the FRMPs assessed: those for Falun, Karlstad and Älvsbyn. For example, the FRMP for Falun includes a measure to develop a guidance document for planning in proximity of flood prone rivers in the county. Few references to NWRM were found in the five FRMPs assessed, though as noted in section 3, the FRMP for Falun includes a measure-oriented objective that mentions wetlands as an example of prevention measures, and the FRMP for Älvsbyn includes some NWRM emanating from the Programme of Measures of the RBMP which are also positive for flooding. Moreover, the FRMP for Älvsbyn notes that NWRMs are a useful approach to address moderate floods. In Sweden’s reporting to WISE for all UoMs, only one measure for type M31 on natural flood management (a measure in the Skagerrak and Kattegat UoM, SE5) is indicated (see Annex A). Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Only the FRMP for Älvsbyn indicates that nature conservation has been considered in the development of measures, as negative effects might occur. In FRMP for Falun, nature conservation was considered but no significant negative impact has been identified. One FRMPs assessed, FRMP Falun, makes a brief reference that a measure shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure, a plan to renovate and improve a quay along the Faluå River. No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed to dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. 4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding The role of insurance policies is not discussed in any of the five FRPMs assessed. 4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP Four out of five FRMPs assessed indicate that implementation will be monitored. The FRMP for Karlstad states that all County administrations responsible for FRMPs will report yearly to the MSB on progress of implementation. The development of the revised FRMPs for the second cycle will include an evaluation of the progress towards the achievement of objectives. The FRMPs assessed do not, however, refer to a baseline against which progress will be monitored and evaluated. 4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second RBMP of the WFD. Table 9 Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the second RBMP of the WFD Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ ✔ The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ ✔ The RBMP Programme of Measures includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and FD, drought management and NWRM a Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs ✔ Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD County administrations work on both RBMPs and FRMPs: however, while five County Administrative Boards are designated as Competent Authorities within their UoMs for the RBMPs (which may cover the territory of other County Administrations), others may work on the FRMPs depending on the location of APSFRs.

In general, the FRMPs provide limited information on coordination with the WFD. One exception is the FRMP for Älvsbyn: an assessment of the effect of RBMP measures on flooding was carried out, identifying positive synergies for three RBMP measures and neutral effects for the others. 4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·One of the five FRMPs assessed provides specific and measurable elements for its measures, such as specific locations. ·Across all five FRMPs assessed, measures are linked to objectives. The following areas for further development were identified: ·The five FRMPs assessed lack information on the cost of measures, and only one provides information on funding sources. ·The FRMPs assessed provide little information on natural water retention measures and few discuss interactions between their measures and nature conservation. ·Although Sweden has reported priorities for over 90 % of its measures, the FRMPs themselves provide little information on prioritisation and do not indicate the method used to determine priorities. ·The FRMPs provide limited information on coordination with the WFD and with Sweden’s RBMPs.



5. Consideration of climate change Climate change was addressed at the APSFR stage in Sweden: climate impacts were calculated for 16 regional climate scenarios to 2050 and further scenarios up to 2098. The results were then adapted to the hydrological modelling. Climate impacts were also considered in the preparation of the objectives for the FRMPs. Nonetheless, despite the extensive analytical work, the FRMPs assessed provide few references to possible impacts of climate change on flood risks. The FRMP for Karlstad indicates that pluvial floods might become more important in the near future. The FRMP for Stockholm states that in the future, water levels in lakes could increase and aggravate fluvial floods. The FRMP for Falun refers to climate change impacts on water discharges and on floods and landslides. The FRMPs do not refer to Sweden’s national climate change adaption strategy, which was integrated into the 2009 Integrated Climate and Energy Strategy, nor the subsequent regional action plans for climate change, which address adaptation . No consideration of climate change is included in the measure description of structural measures in the FRMPs assessed. Nonetheless, as noted above, modelling was used to incorporate climate change into the APSFR maps and consequently the FHRMs – and these stages were in turn used to develop the objectives and measures of the FRMPs. 5.1Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practice was identified: ·Sweden used advanced and detailed modelling to incorporate climate change into its APSFRs and FHRMs, which in turn were used to prepare the objectives and measures of the FRMPs. The following area for further development was identified.

·The FRMPs provide little information on potential climate impacts and to a very limited extent describe how such potential impacts were considered in the selection and design of their measures. ·Coordination with national climate change policy does not appear to have taken place systematically.



6. Cost-benefit analysis Only one of the five FRMPs assessed – the plan for Älvsbyn – refers to cost-benefit analysis; however, this FRMP only makes a brief reference without indicating if or at what stage such an analysis was carried out. The Älvsbyn FRMP moreover mentions that some measures were not pursued following the consultation due to their low cost-effectiveness, but information on how this was assessed is not provided. This and other FRMPs indicate that certain measures are considered cost-effective but do not explain whether this is based on an analysis, . 6.1Good practices and areas for further development The following area for further development was identified: ·Only one of the five FRMPs assessed refers to the use of cost-benefit analysis, but without providing details on if or at what stage this was used.

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1Competent authorities Based on the FRMPs and the information provided in the reporting sheets, the Competent Authorities and the UoMs identified for the FD have not changed. Sweden has not reported new information to WISE since 2010. 7.2Public information and consultation The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs assessed concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: Table 10 Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ ✔ Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Printed material ✔ Direct mailing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Invitations to stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔ Local Authorities ✔ Meetings Other Source: FRMPs Based on information in the reporting sheets and the FRMPs, all five FRMPs assessed refer to the provision of information via the Internet, though all five refer to direct contacts with stakeholders, including mailing and (for three) invitations. Two of the FRMPs assessed refer to the use of media, such as newspaper. The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: Table 11 Methods used for the actual consultation

Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ Via digital social networking Direct invitation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP ✔ ✔ Postal written comments ✔ Other Source: FRMPs The consultations were carried out through direct invitation to public consultation and written responses, and through different types of meetings held for the FRMPs for Älvsbyn, Falun, Stockholm and Karlstad. (The stakeholders attending these meeting were additionally expected to formulate their views in a written response.) The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: Table 12 Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation All UoMs assessed Downloadable ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) ✔ Direct mailing (post) Paper copies distributed at exhibitions Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority Paper copies available at meetings Source: FRMPs Generally speaking, the FRMPs were distributed as downloadable documents through the internet site of the CA, or as email attachments. 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed: Table 13 Groups of stakeholders Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities ✔ Drainage Authorities Emergency services ✔ Water supply and sanitation ✔ ✔ ✔ Agriculture / farmers Energy / hydropower ✔ ✔ ✔ Navigation / ports Fisheries / aquaculture Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) ✔ Non-governmental organisations including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) ✔ Consumer Groups Local / Regional authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Academia / Research Institutions ✔ Other * ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Notes: * Other in Sweden refers to road and railroad authorities (in all four FRMPs identified) and to cultural heritage authorities in Karlstad as well as a museum in Falun. Based on the information found in the reporting sheets and the FRMPs, there was a high degree of variability in the involvement of stakeholders across the plans, with a broad range of organisations identified as involved for the FRMP for Karlstad. Moreover, for this FRMP, the office responsible for the FRMP also coordinated with County offices not directly involved in water management, such as the Cultural Heritage section. For Kristianstad, information was found only on the involvement of municipality of Kristianstad. The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: Table 14 Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups ✔ Involvement in drafting ✔ ✔ Workshops and technical meetings ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Formation of alliances Information days Source: FRMPs The extent of information reported on mechanisms for active involvement varies across the five FRMPs assessed. For all five plans, workshops and technical meetings were held with stakeholders. In Karlstad, as indicated above, a broad range of stakeholders were involved, and the County administration organised an initial “cooperation meeting” in 2014 with stakeholder representatives to discuss objectives. For this FRMP, the County administration maintained regular dialogue with the municipality of Karlstad; moreover, a group of stakeholders – including the Swedish Armed Forces, Hammarö Municipality, Karlstads Power Network Ltd, Karlstad Municipality and the Swedish Transport Agency – were invited to participate in Joint Flooding Cooperation Groups.

7.4Effects of consultation The table below shows the effects of consultation: Table 15 Effects of consultation Älvsbyn SE1A8932 Falun SE2A6504 Karlstad SE5A5704 Kristianstad SE4A2980 Stockholm SE3A0336 Changes to selection of measures ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Adjustment to specific measures ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Addition of new information ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Changes to the methodology used Commitment to further research Commitment to action in the next FRMP ✔ ✔ ✔ Comments and results of the consultation "were considered in the formulation of the plan" ✔ Source: FRMPs According to information provided in the FRMPs, public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders led to changes in the selection of measures, adjustments to specific measures and addition of new information for four of the five plans assessed (and for three of these, there was commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle. For example, for the FRMP for Älvsbyn, two measures proposed were moved and four new measures were introduced (on flood risk exercises, flood management through cooperation with Non-Governmental Organisations, an inventory of environmentally hazardous activities and contaminated areas within the APSFR, and an investigation of infrastructure measures to reduce flood risk). Information was not found, however, on changes to the FRMP for Kristianstad. 7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment Two of the five FRMPs assessed – those for Älvsbyn and Falun – indicated that a Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken. No information was found on SEA for the other three FRMPs assessed. 7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance The following good practices were identified: ·While the information available on consultation and active involvement of stakeholders varies, it is clear that the preparation of the FRMP for Karlstad included a variety of mechanisms for outreach and the strong involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. ·Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on the impacts of public consultation and active involvement of stakeholders on the final plans. The following area for further development was identified: ·Three of the five FRMPs assessed do not indicate if a Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure was undertaken.

· Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Sweden in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section four on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the FRMPs. The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections:

·Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted. ·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example above on the name of the Responsible Authority), are categorised as “no information”. Types of measures used in reporting The following table is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. NO ACTION M11: No Action PREPAREDNESS M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning M42: Emergency response planning M43: Public Awareness M44: Other preparedness PREVENTION M21: Avoidance M22: Removal or relocation M23: Reduction M24: Other prevention RECOVERY & REVIEW M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery M52: Environmental recovery M53: Other recovery PROTECTION M31: Natural flood management M32: Flow regulation M33: Coastal and floodplain works M34: Surface Water Management M35: other protection OTHER MEASURES M61: Other measures





List of Annex A tables & figures Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Geographic location by measure aspect Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Geographic location by UoM Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by UoM Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A1 - Total number of measures Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A5 - Geographic location of implementation by measure aspect Table A6 - Geographic location of implementation by UoM Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM

Table A9 - Level of responsibility authority by measure aspect Table A10 - Level of responsibility authority by UoM Table A11 – Progress of implementation by UoM Table A12 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Measures overview Table A1 - Total number of measures Number of individual measures 138 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 138 Number of aggregated measures 210 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 210 Total number of measures 348 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 348 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 13-137 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 58 Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery and Review Other Grand Total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M32 M33 M34 M35 M41 M42 M43 M44 M52 SE1 2 4 2 5 13 SE1TO 2 1 3 SE2 1 1 1 1 2 6 SE3 1 3 21 2 3 7 1 38 SE4 1 8 1 5 1 4 6 7 33 SE5 1 3 9 1 6 3 1 3 8 9 1 45 Grand Total 4 2 11 42 1 1 13 3 7 3 12 21 16 2 0 138 Average per UoM <1 <1 2 7 <1 <1 2 <1 1 <1 2 4 3 <1 0 23 Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM Prevention Protection Preparedness Recovery & Review Other Grand Total M21 M24 M32 M33 M34 M35 M41 M42 M43 M44 M51 M52 M61 SE1 4 1 5 3 5 1 19 SE1TO 2 2 3 2 1 10 SE2 3 8 1 1 1 4 10 4 7 1 2 42 SE3 5 24 1 4 2 4 1 41 SE4 3 3 6 SE5 9 42 8 2 8 14 7 2 92 Grand Total 23 80 1 1 1 13 14 25 31 15 2 2 2 210 Average per UoM 4 13 <1 <1 <1 2 2 4 5 3 <1 <1 <1 35 Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM Prevention Prevention Total Protection Protection Total Preparedness Preparedness Total Recovery and review Recovery and review Total Other Other Total Grand Total Agg. Indiv. Agg. Indiv. Agg. Indiv. Agg. Indiv. Agg. SE5 51 13 64 8 11 19 31 20 51 2 1 3 137 SE4 3 9 12 6 6 3 18 21 39 SE3 29 25 54 5 5 7 12 19 1 1 79 SE2 11 2 13 3 2 5 25 2 27 1 1 2 2 48 SE1TO 4 2 6 1 1 6 6 13 SE1 5 8 13 5 5 13 13 1 1 32 Grand Total 103 59 162 16 25 41 85 52 137 4 2 6 2 2 348 Average per UoM 17 10 27 3 4 7 14 9 23 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 58 The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect

Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). Sweden did not provide any information regarding the costs of each measure in the reporting sheets. Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to report information on the following: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures SE gives information in Swedish. The answers have been categorised into the following: ·Specific location: e.g. a river, a waste treatment plant, a hospital, a cemetery ·Catchment ·APSFR: Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk ·Local: e.g. county, municipality ·National ·Other location Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect

Specific location Catchment APSFR Local National Other Location Grand Total Prevention 15 4 88 46 2 7 162 Protection 7 21 11 2 41 Preparedness 16 4 80 33 3 1 137 Recovery & Review 3 3 6 Other 2 2 Grand Total 40 8 192 93 5 10 348

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM Specific location Catchment APSFR Local National Other Location Grand Total SE1 2 13 12 5 32 SE1TO 1 3 9 13 SE2 15 12 19 2 48 SE3 11 1 50 14 3 79 SE4 1 38 39 SE5 10 7 76 39 5 137 Grand Total 40 8 192 93 5 10 348 Average per UoM 7 1 32 19 1 2 58

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM Geographic coverage Sweden did not provide any information on the geographic coverage in the reporting sheets Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to report information on: ·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML); ·Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required); ·Timetable (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required). Objectives

Sweden did not provide any information on the objectives of measures in the reporting sheets Category of priority Sweden provided information for the priority of all measures except for 28 measures (all in SE5). The following categories are used in the reporting sheet: ·Critical; ·Very high; ·High; ·Moderate; ·Low. Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect Critical Very high High Moderate Low No information Grand Total Prevention 4 37 67 38 7 9 162 Protection 3 8 12 8 10 41 Preparedness 12 16 57 41 3 8 137 Recovery & Review 1 3 1 1 6 Other 1 1 2 Grand Total 20 61 139 88 12 28 348 Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM Critical Very high High Moderate Low No information Grand Total SE1 6 18 8 32 SE1TO 3 7 3 13 SE2 3 19 21 5 48 SE3 20 47 12 79 SE4 28 10 1 39 SE5 11 13 34 45 6 28 137 Grand Total 20 61 139 88 12 28 348 Average per UoM 3 10 23 4 2 5 58



Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM Timetable

Information on the timetable is given for every measure as either a timespan, a single year, or a textual description. It is assumed that those single dates are completion dates, and the remaining measures have been categorised appropriately. Five measures have information on the timeline, but it is unclear when they will be completed. Six measures do not have dates (“other timeline”) and include measures which are only implemented when needed (e.g. in a flood). Table A9 - Timetable by measure aspect Ongoing 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2026 2028 Other Unclear Grand Total Prevention 27 1 13 29 16 26 12 33 3 1 1 162 Protection 4 5 7 2 4 1 13 1 1 3 41 Preparedness 32 22 18 23 6 4 28 3 1 137 Recovery & Review 3 1 1 1 6 Other 1 1 2 Grand Total 66 1 40 54 43 38 17 74 3 1 6 5 348



Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable by measure aspect Table A10 - Timetable by UoM Ongoing 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2026 2028 Other Unclear Grand Total SE1 16 1 5 1 6 3 32 SE1TO 6 1 5 1 13 SE2 13 9 12 5 4 4 1 48 SE3 2 12 26 13 15 7 3 1 79 SE4 13 6 7 2 1 6 3 1 39 SE5 29 4 10 16 17 7 49 1 4 137 Grand Total 66 1 40 54 43 38 17 74 3 1 6 5 348 Average per UoM 13 <1 7 9 7 6 3 12 <1 <1 1 1 58



Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable by UoM Measure details: authorities Member States were requested to report information on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported). ·Local: including municipalities and counties

·Private: private company, for example Akzo Nobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals or utility companies ·Local/Private: where local authorities and private companies with joint responsibility ·Transport authority: including those at national and at local levels ·Other: including Lantmännen AB, a farming cooperative, and the Civil Protection and Emergency Agency



Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect Local Joint Local/ Private Private company Transport authority Other authority Grand Total Prevention 139 2 5 13 3 162 Protection 30 1 6 4 41 Preparedness 122 9 2 4 137 Recovery & Review 5 1 6 Other 2 2 Grand Total 298 3 20 20 7 348 Notes: Measures with more than one responsible authority have only been categorised once, usually based on the level of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there are two local level authorities and one private, then the measure would fall under “local”). Exception is where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect Notes: Measures with more than one responsible authority have only been categorised once, usually based on the level of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there are two local level authorities and one private, then the measure would fall under “local”). Exception is where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”)



Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM Local Local/ Private Private Transport Agency Other authority Grand Total SE1 26 4 2 32 SE1TO 12 1 13 SE2 36 1 9 2 48 SE3 65 2 4 8 79 SE4 39 39 SE5 120 3 8 6 137 Grand Total 298 3 20 20 7 348 Average per UoM 50 <1 3 3 1 58 Notes: Measures with more than one responsible authority have only been categorised once, usually based on the level of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there are two local level authorities and one private, then the measure would fall under “local”). Exception is where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table 12: Level of responsibility by UoM Notes: Measures with more than one responsible authority have only been categorised once, usually based on the level of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there are two local level authorities and one private, then the measure would fall under “local”). Exception is where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”)

Measure details: progress Member States were requested to report information on:

·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below; ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here. Sweden reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The progress of implementation was reported as : ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction); ·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. Table A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Not started Progress ongoing Grand Total Prevention 111 51 162 Protection 28 13 41 Preparedness 72 65 137 Recovery & Review 4 2 6 Other 2 2 Grand Total 217 131 348 Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM Not started Progress ongoing Grand Total SE1 19 13 32 SE1TO 11 2 13 SE2 30 18 48 SE3 66 13 79 SE4 23 16 39 SE5 68 69 137 Grand Total 217 131 348 Average per UoM 36 22 58 Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the FD. For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded.

Measure details: other Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); ·Any other information reported (optional field). Sweden has provided information on other legislation for 20 measures: ·Enligt Plan- och bygglagen (Planning and Building Act); ·Förordning (2006:942) om krisberedskap och höjd beredskap (Emergency preparedness rules); ·Lag (2003:778) om skydd mot olyckor (Law on protection against accidents); ·Lagen (2006:544) om kommuners och landstings åtgärder inför och vid extraordinära händelser i fredstid och höjd beredskap (Act on the actions of municipalities and county councils extraordinary events); ·Plan- och bygglagen (Planning and Building Act); ·Sevesoanläggning (Seveso construction); ·Sevesoverksamhet (Seveso operations); ·Vattenverksamhet enligt 11 kap Miljöbalken (Water activities under Chapt. 11 of the Environment Code). Seven measures appear to refer to the Seveso Directive. Sweden did not report any information in the field “other”.



Annex B: Definitions of measure types Table B1 Types of flood risk management measures No Action M11 No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, Prevention M21 Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation M22 Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard M23 Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... M24 Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...) Protection M31 Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the hydrological regime. M33 Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc. M34 Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). M35 Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies Preparedness M41 Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system M42 Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning M43 Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events M44 Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to reduce adverse consequences Recovery & Review M51 Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other M52 Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) M53 Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies Other M61 Other