EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 57 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Sweden







Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 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) 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} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second RBMPs and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of Measures

9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to RBMP prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union and Norway) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Sweden has a population of 9.75 million (Eurostat 2015) . The total area of Sweden is 453 140 km2 ( ). The Bothnian Bay River Basin District (RBD) is shared with Finland and Norway mainly by the River Torne, which forms part of the border between Finland and Sweden. A very small part of this catchment is in Norway. The border between Sweden and Norway is mostly formed by a mountain range. About 30 transboundary catchments are shared between the two countries, most of them having only a small part in the upstream country. These small parts of catchments have been given specific codes in addition to the main RBDs in Sweden (SE1, SE2 and SE5). In Skagerrak and Kattegat there is one major international river shared with Norway, the Göta river catchment, which includes the river Klarälven and Lake Vänern, the largest lake in the European Union (5 655 km²). The information on the areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A. Sweden’s share of the international RBDs is shown in Table B. Table A Overview of Sweden’s RBDs RBD Name Size (km2) (Area including coastal waters shown in brackets) Countries sharing RBD SE1** Bothnian Bay (Bottenviken) 120900 (128100) FI, NO SE1TO Bothnian Bay (International district Torne river) (managed as part of SE1) 25420 (25500) FI, NO SE2** Bothnian Sea (Bottenhavet) 140200 (145200) NO SE3** North Baltic Sea (Norra Östersjön) 36980 (44200) - SE4** South Baltic Sea (Södra Östersjön) 54920 (64980) - SE5** Skagerrak and Kattegat (Västerhavet) 68580 (71690) NO SE1102 Bothnian Sea (International RBD Trondelagsfylkene) (managed as part of SE2) 450 NO SE1103 Bothnian Bay (International RBD Nordland) (managed as part of SE1) 1319 NO SE1104 Bothnian Bay (International RBD Troms) (managed as part of SE1) 192 NO SE5101 Skagerrak and Kattegat (International RBD Glomma) (managed as part of SE2 and SE5) 992 NO Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE Note: ** Main RBDs shown. All the small international parts of these RBDs are reported in separate envelopes ( http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/eu/wfd2016/ ), but the RBMPs are the same as those for the main RBDs, and are adopted and reported at the same dates.



Table B Transboundary RBDs by category and % share in Sweden Name international river basin Sweden national RBDs Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination Category 2 km2 % Ångermanälven SE2 NO 30349 95.0 Dalälven SE2 NO 27843 95.0 Fagerbakkvassdraget Nordland/SE1 NO 20 2.0 Glomma Glomma/SE5/SE2 NO 430 1.0 Haldenvassdraget/Enningsdal SE1 NO 578 23.0 Hellemovassdraget Nordland/SE1 NO 16 1.0 Indalsälven SE2 NO 24763 92.0 Klarälven/Trysil - Göta alv/Vänern Göta/ (including the Sub-basins Norsälven/Byälven/ Upperudälven) SE5 NO 42982 84.0 Kobbelva Nordland/SE1 NO 10 1.0 Luleälven SE1 NO 24506 97.0 Malselvvassdraget/Malangen Troms/SE1 NO 209 3.0 Nidelva Troendelag/SE2 NO 293 8.0 Piteälven SE1 NO 11186 99.0 Ranavassdraget Nordland/SE1 NO 270 6.0 Rossaga Nordland/SE1 NO 193 7.0 Saltelva Nordland/SE1 NO 119 6.0 Signaldalselva Troms/SE1 NO 46 3.0 Skjomavassdraget Nordland/SE1 NO 160 10.0 Stjordalsvassdraget Troendelag/SE2 NO 46 2.0 Torneälven/Tornionjoki SE1 FI/NO 25393 63.1 Umeälven SE1 NO 26561 99.0 Vefsna Nordland/SE1 NO 548 12.0 Verdalsvassdraget Troendelag/SE2 NO 102 6.0 Source: WISE electronic reporting Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place.

Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of five RBMPs for Sweden (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic, South Baltic, Skagerrak and Kattegat and Glomma) were published on 21 December 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Sweden are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Sweden has coordinated the preparation of RBMPs with Finland and Norway, including via the preparation of “roof reports” on common challenges and actions, and these were provided for consultation in all countries involved. A broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the preparation and drafting of Sweden’s RBMPs via advisory groups. Sweden did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD Some small water bodies situated in Protected Areas have been delineated as separate water bodies, so their objectives will be in line with those of other water bodies in Protected Areas. In each of the RBDs there are several river, lake and coastal water bodies that are reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types. The RBMPs reported that the Swedish classification system has been successfully intercalibrated for all the biological quality elements for national types that have been linked to common intercalibration types. Type specific reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality elements, physicochemical quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements for all coastal water bodies, but not for rivers or lakes. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to these quality elements. Further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. For surface water bodies, significance of pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives and are defined in terms of thresholds. The significance of pressures is reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives for groundwaters. Sweden has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures since the first RBMPs, developing a set of new methods for each of the major pressure/impact categories: nutrient enrichment, acidification, contamination by hazardous substances and morphological pressures. Models are used to estimate the source apportionment and link threshold values to the boundary for the sensitive biological quality elements; however, the significance of pressures has not been defined in terms of thresholds for pressures on groundwater and for defining abstraction, artificial recharge, and other pressures; only expert judgement was used. All RBDs reported inventories of emissions, discharges, and losses, containing each only between six to eight Priority Substances. For some substances in the inventories (including some substances deemed relevant at RBD level), Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented; for the others a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was used, while the Guidance Document recommends applying at least Tier 1 + 2 for all substances relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status

The proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring increased for all relevant water categories in the second RBMPs. The same happened with operational monitoring in coastal and river water bodies, while there was a small decrease for lake water bodies. There has been an overall increase in the numbers of surveillance monitoring sites in coastal waters (+27 %), lakes (+19 %) and rivers (+26 %) since the first RBMPs. The number of operational monitoring sites in rivers increased by 3 % since the first RBMPs, but there was a decrease in coastal waters (-9 %) and lakes (-26 %). Monitoring of biological quality elements still shows several gaps, namely for angiosperms and macroalgae in coastal waters, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes and fish in lakes. These were monitored only in some RBDs or not at all. Morphological conditions were not monitored in any water category or RBD, and there are also gaps concerning tidal regime and hydrological regime. Similarly, there are also significant gaps in the monitoring of general physicochemical quality elements. None of the coastal waters, lakes, and river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring was monitored for all required biological or hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements. Of the 10 biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring in surface waters, only phytoplankton was sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites in coastal waters. For operational monitoring, none of the 10 biological quality elements used were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sampling sites. When it comes to River Basin Specific Pollutants, 34 were reported to be monitored, four in biota (unspecified), seven in fish, six in biota other than fish, nine in settled sediment, and 33 in water. Biota, settled sediment, and water were monitored in all three relevant water categories. None of the River Basin Specific Pollutants were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. Assessment methods for biological quality element methods were developed since the first RBMPs for angiosperms in coastal waters, but methods for the assessment of phytobenthos in lakes and macroalgae in coastal waters are still missing. A method for macrophytes in rivers was recently developed, but was not reported. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements are reported for each water category, but are not linked to the sensitive biological quality elements. For physicochemical quality elements, only the assessment methods for nutrients in all water categories are reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. Environmental Quality Standards have been set for 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water and in all water categories. For one substance (polychlorinated biphenyl) Environmental Quality Standards in biota and fish were also derived. All Standards have been derived in accordance with Technical Guidance n. 27. The analytical methods are in line with Articles 4(1) or 4(2) of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC), except those for the two estradiols. Expert judgment is the most often used means of classification of ecological status/potential of the quality elements in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters in Sweden. The use of hydromorphological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in the overall classification of ecological status ware largely based on expert judgment, even when this was not the case in the classification of the individual parameters. There are still only a small minority of water bodies classified for most of the biological quality elements in all water categories. In general, more lakes and river water bodies were classified using physicochemical quality elements than using biological quality elements. The number of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential was reduced from 128 in the first RBMPs to only one in the second. The proportion of coastal waters in good or better status increased, while the proportion of rivers and lakes reported to be in good or better ecological status/potential decreased significantly. These changes are mostly reported as being due to better data, knowledge and more complete assessment methods, and not to real deterioration of status. Confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential assessment has improved, especially for rivers and lakes, due to more monitoring and better assessment of biological quality elements. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

All water categories including territorial waters are monitored for Priority Substances for the assessment of chemical status. In all water categories, the proportion of monitoring sites used for chemical status is low in particular compared to the proportion of monitoring sites used for ecological status (5 % and 3 % of surface water bodies are included in surveillance and operational monitoring respectively for chemical status); however, this could be explained by the fact that the reported pressures with respect to chemical status are limited to ‘diffuse – atmospheric deposition’ which is affecting almost all surface water bodies. Chemical status has been assigned through a combination of monitoring and expert judgement with medium to low confidence for the majority of water bodies. Sweden monitors all (6 to 12) of the Priority Substances included in the inventories in five RBDs with the exception of one substance (DEHP) in the Bothnian Bay RBD. There are a large number of water bodies with no, or limited monitoring of Priority Substances. Where monitoring occurs, the monitoring frequencies are consistent with the recommended minimum guideline Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota and/or sediment for status assessment with frequencies that meet the recommended minimum guideline in some, but not all monitoring sites According to WISE, arrangements are in place for the long-term trend analysis, but monitoring of sediment and biota reported to WISE is said to be for status assessment only. Sweden subsequently clarified that the required substances are monitored for trend analysis; however, this might not have been reported properly in the RBMPs. Sweden reports that all surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status. All 41 Priority Substances are used in the assessment of chemical status across all 10 RBDs.; however, not all of these substances are monitored in each of the RBDs. The majority of surface water bodies were classified via expert judgement, all of which again were found to fail to achieve good status with grouping and monitoring underpinning classification for 0.3 and 4.3 % of surface water bodies respectively. The assessment of chemical status is driven by the failure of the environmental quality standard for mercury in biota and for brominated diphenylethers where these are monitored, and the extrapolation of these results through expert judgement to unmonitored water bodies. Sweden has used the environmental quality standards from the revised Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) (2013/39/EU) as the basis for the assessment of chemical status for 33 Priority Substances in the second RBMP. For the remaining eight Priority Substances, Sweden reported that alternative and/or additional standards have been applied. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Only 2 % of the groundwater bodies are covered by monitoring for quantitative status. While all groundwater bodies have a clear status, the confidence in the status assessment is unknown for 87 % of the groundwater bodies. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Surveillance and operational monitoring have improved significantly. Sweden subsequently clarified that not reporting all WFD core parameters that are subject to monitoring is likely to be a reporting error. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential Two new guidelines for the designation of heavily modified water bodies have been developed since the first RBMPs (one general guideline and one guideline specific to hydropower). The methodology for designation addresses the criteria for the identification of substantial changes in character, the assessment of significant adverse effects on the use and explanations of how WFD Article 4(3)(b) has been applied (better environmental option). The reason for the designation of most heavily modified water bodies in Sweden is still hydropower production (in particular large-scale hydropower over 10 megawatts). The lack of designations due to other uses is related to the lack of national guidance on how water bodies affected by other water uses should be assessed from a heavily modified water bodies-perspective. More detailed guidance on designation related to other activities (other than hydropower) is still pending. Work to define good ecological potential is still ongoing. Good ecological potential definition in terms of biology is foreseen in theory in the relevant guidelines, but it has not been carried out yet in practice. Mitigation measures for good ecological potential are not yet defined for specific heavily modified water bodies, but the RBMPs indicate future work to define these still in 2018. The water authorities (in all districts) started a project in 2016 in order to develop river basin-based plans of measures which will be used to identify the measures that are reasonable for achieving good ecological potential for heavily modified and artificial water bodies related to hydropower by the end of 2018. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies have been reported in all RBDs. Drivers, pressures and impacts leading to exemptions are reported and exemptions have been applied at water body level. Sweden has developed new national guidance on exemptions in preparation of the second RBMPs. The justifications for Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions have been revised in the second cycle following implementation of the national guidance. The use of this justification of disproportionate costs is hampered by the lack of cost information in some cases.

·Programme of Measures The most important progress made seems to be the definition of a significant number of national measures in relation to specific pressures (although not all pressures appear to have been addressed), the planning of more measures and/or the extension of measures in the second and third cycles, for example to control nutrients and in particular phosphorus loads. The level of implementation of the first cycle of Programme of Measures (PoM) in Sweden was reported as “some measures completed” for all five main RBDs. A clear financial commitment is reported as having been secured for the implementation of PoM in all five RBDs. New legislation or regulations to implement the Programmes of Measures in the first RBMP was reported necessary and already adopted in all five RBDs. Many of the reported significant pressures are not covered by operational KTMs. National basic measures (52) and national supplementary measures (45) have been mapped against 14 of the 25 pre-defined KTMs. All measures apply in all RBDs. Some basic measures have been mapped against KTMs for which their operational measures have not been reported. No measure was reported as linked to individual Priority Substance or River Basin Specific Pollutant, although measures have been reported to tackle chemical pollution both in surface waters and in groundwaters . Indicators have been developed for a number of significant pressures. Where they have been developed, they are well defined and indicate a high level of ambition. Indicators have not been developed for all the significant pressures identified. Full integration of the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans is reported and WFD Article 9(4) has been applied (as reported in WISE, although Sweden subsequently clarified that there was not full integration, but close co-operation). Although full integration is reported (see above), other aspects which would therefore be expected (e.g. joint consultation, win-win measures) are reported as not having taken place/been included in the second RBMPs. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as relevant for Sweden, where minor numbers of groundwater bodies are failing good quantitative status and minor numbers of surface water bodies with significant abstraction pressures. The Water Exploitation Index is not calculated; though water quantity data have been reported to support the European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. Article 11(3)(e) controls over agricultural water abstraction and impoundment (e.g. permits and water pricing policies) have not been improved since the first cycle. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment was carried out for the reductions needed in loads of nitrogen and phosphorus and for the reduction in the number of applications of pesticides to achieve objectives. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Significant changes are announced in the RBMPs but are not detailed further. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well as measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff.

Limited information was available in the RBMPs on whether mandatory or voluntary measures are being used. Progress is anticipated as the area to be covered by the measures tackling nutrient pollution is expected to increase significantly between 2015 and 2021. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture As noted in relation to Topic 9, no substance-specific measures was reported to WISE although measures were reported to tackle chemical pollution. The effectiveness of measures to combat phosphorus pollution in coastal catchments is described in the RBMPs, but cannot be judged because of a lack of information on the reduction need, and in other catchments it is not clear how the calculated need will be met. ·Measures related to hydromorphology In the first RBMPs, no concrete measures were identified to achieve improvements in hydromorphology. The proposed measures were mainly aiming at an improved basis for decisions upon specific measures to be taken in the next planning cycle. In the second RBMPs, operational KTMs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures are reported in the five main RBDs but only in relation to dams/barriers/locks. No operational KTM are reported for significant physical alterations, hydrological alterations and hydromorphological alterations. In addition, significant hydromorphological pressures are assigned to specific sectors only to some extent. From the information available, there will be considerable progress in closing the gap by 2021 in terms of continuity barriers. Nevertheless, after 2021, there will still be a considerable number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve the objectives, especially in the Bothnian Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat (Glomma) RBDs. Ecological flows have been derived partially, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, but the work is still on-going. The ecological flows that have been derived so far have been implemented only in some relevant water bodies. The issue of ecological flows is generally not described in detail. The measures linked to ecological flows are all administrative (guiding of other authorities, planning, identification of needs etc.) and no information is given on specific and physical efforts planned. Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are not reported as included in the PoM. Also, the design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defenses, storage dams, and tidal barriers, are reported not to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies It is not explained how pricing policies provide ‘adequate incentives’. No detailed information on the application of the Polluter Pays Principle was reported. Cost recovery rates are provided only for the municipal water and wastewater system (combined). Environmental and resource costs have not been included ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ·In terms of setting specific objectives for Protected Areas designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives associated with surface waters, Sweden reports that some specific objectives have been set, but work is still on-going to determine needs. No information is provided in WISE on whether these specific objectives have been met. ·Where Protected Areas have been designated in relation to shellfish production (in the SE5 RBD), additional specific objectives have also been defined, comprising microbiological standards that are different to those in the repealed Shellfish Directive 2006/113/EC; however, no information is provided in WISE on whether these specific objectives have been met. ·The lack of some Protected Area monitoring programmes and the low number of monitoring sites in some cases indicate insufficient monitoring of water bodies associated with Protected Areas. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs.

It is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was not used for the preparation of the RBMPs. KTM 24 – "Adaptation to climate change" has not been made operational to address significant pressures in any of the RBDs. Droughts have not been reported to be relevant for the country, except in the South Baltic Sea RBDs which are facing frequent local droughts and occasional large-scale water shortage, according to the information provided by Sweden. No drought management plans have been reported for Sweden.

Recommendations Sweden needs to ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. Clear information should be included in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts in order to increase transparency. Sweden should continue to focus on international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Further work is needed to define type-specific reference conditions for relevant biological, physicochemical and hydromorphological Quality Elements in rivers and lakes. Sweden should further strengthen the monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. An increased level of monitoring should lead to a lower dependence on expert judgment for the classification of ecological status/potential. Sweden should ensure that Environmental Quality Standards are available and adequate for all relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants. Sweden should complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements in all categories of water bodies. Assessment methods for hydromorphological and for physicochemical quality elements should be linked to the sensitive biological quality elements. Sweden should improve the monitoring for status assessment to reach sufficient confidence and spatial coverage for all the Priority Substances as well as the monitoring frequencies in biota/sediment in all monitoring sites according to the Directive. Sweden should report information on trend monitoring in surface waters, which should cover all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC in order to provide sufficient data for long-term trend analysis. The knowledge base on groundwater should significantly be improved in Sweden. Enhanced and robust groundwater monitoring should be established based on WFD requirements. WFD based methodologies should be used to assess groundwater status correctly. Sweden should continue the efforts and complete the methodologies for the designation of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water uses, including clear criteria for the assessment of significant adverse effects of mitigation measures on use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options. Ecological potential still needs to be defined for each individual heavily modified and artificial water body based on a comprehensive set of mitigation measures. Progress in the justification of exemptions by further substantiating the related assessments with additional data and information and by reducing the remaining degree of uncertainties should be pursued. The number of applied exemptions is still significant. Sweden should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions as much as possible for the next cycle in order to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Sweden should make sure that significant pressures are covered by operational KTMs. Measures to address all relevant Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and groundwater pollutants should be identified and linked to the individual substances.

Indicators for all identified significant pressures should be developed. In the third RBMPs, it should be stated clearly for all RBDs, to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. Sources of funding should be identified (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures in all RBDs. Sweden needs to continue its efforts to quantify the phosphorus reduction need in coastal catchments and to find additional measures against phosphorus pollution in general. Sweden should ensure the implementation and appropriate reporting of measures to tackle all hydromorphological pressures, including restoration of the hydrological and hydromorphological conditions of water bodies. The methodology for establishing ecological flows need to be finalised, and its full implementation should be ensured in all RBDs. Sweden should continue to consider river restoration and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water infiltration, and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. Sweden should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also present transparently the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. Sweden should continue to work on setting specific additional objectives for all Protected Areas under relevant Directives and ensure their link to the WFD implementation. Based on the prevalence of local drought in the Bothnian Sea and North Baltic Sea RBDs, as one of the effects of climate change, Sweden should consider preparing drought management plans where appropriate.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – River Basin Districts Sweden has designated 10 RBDs. Of the 10 RBDs, four are small catchments shared with Norway and one is a larger catchment shared with Finland. These five RBDs are managed under three larger RBDs, Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, and Skagerrak and Kattegat. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Sweden reports Competent Authorities at national and sub-national level. Sweden has five Water Authorities for: the Bothnian Sea Water District, Bothnian Bay Water District, North Baltic Water District, South Baltic Water District, and Skagerrak and Kattegat Water District. The main roles for the five Water Authorities are: monitoring of groundwater and surface water , economic analysis, preparation of RBMPs and PoM, public participation and co-ordination of implementation. These Authorities have supporting roles for the assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, and reporting to the Commission. The 21 County Administrative Boards main roles include the assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, the enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, and public participation issuing regulations for the respective water districts. Sweden reported to WISE that they have a supporting role for the monitoring of groundwater and surface water and Sweden informed that the Boards also manage several monitoring programmes. Three national bodies have several roles: ·The Swedish Geological Survey’s main role focuses on regulating/issuing regulations implementation of measures and coordination of measures; it has a support role for monitoring of groundwater and reporting to the Commission and Sweden has informed that it also has a role in the preparation of national guidance.

·The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management’s main role focuses on the regulating/issuing regulations, coordinate the five water authorities, implementation of measures, coordination of measures, and reporting to the Commission; it has a secondary role for monitoring of surface water. Sweden also informed that the agency also has a role in the preparation of national guidance. ·The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s main roles are to put focus on the enforcement of regulations and the implementation of measures. The Agency has the primary responsibility for environmental monitoring and funding of monitoring. In addition to these three bodies, other national organisations have a primary responsibility for the implementation of measures: ·Swedish Board of Agriculture; ·Swedish Forest Agency; ·Swedish Energy Agency; ·Swedish Chemical Agency; ·Medical Products Agency. ·Swedish Coast Guard; ·Mining Inspectorate, under the Swedish Geological Survey; ·Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency; ·National Board of Housing, Building and Planning; ·Surgeon General (Defence Inspector for Health and the Environment); In addition, County Administration Boards and municipalities (290 in total) also have a main role in the implementation of measures. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Sweden did not report sub-plans for its RBMPs to WISE, but has informed that sub plans for some RBDs have been reported in appendices to the RBMPs. Sweden informed that the RBMPs identify sub-plans. For example, the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBMP includes a summary of sub-plans, and for the North Baltic RBMP, 50 detailed sub-basin plans have been produced and made available to the public. All of Sweden's RBMPs underwent Strategic Environmental Assessments. 1.1.4Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders In all of Sweden's RBDs, the public and interested parties were informed about the public consultation by the following means: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, media (papers, TV and radio), meetings, and printed material. Documents for consultation were available by: direct mailing (both email and post), download, and paper copies available in municipal buildings and distributed at exhibitions. Documents were available for the requisite six months. The following stakeholder groups in each RBD were actively involved in the development of Sweden's RBMPs: national authorities, agriculture/farmers, energy/hydropower, fisheries, aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. The mechanisms for active involvement were: the establishment of advisory groups and involvement in drafting.

In all of Sweden's RBDs, the impact of the public consultation and active involvement was: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures and commitment to action in the next RBMP. 1.1.5Integration with other European Union legislation: Floods Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive Sweden reported to WISE that, in each of its RBDs, the RBMP and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plan were integrated into a single plan. Sweden has afterwards informed that separate RBMPs and FRMPs had been prepared and that each RBMP discuss coordination with the Floods Directive and relevant FRMPs; moreover, some County Administrative Boards considered measures and objectives under both the WFD and FD, and certain measures were included in both RBMPs and FRMPs. Sweden did not report that there was joint consultation of the RBMPs and FRMPs . Sweden reported that, in each of its RBDs, there was joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Further information on integration with respect to the PoM in available in Chapter 9 of this report. 1.1.6International Coordination Sweden shares eight of its 10 RBDs with neighbouring countries. Two RBDs – Bothnian Bay (Bottenviken) and Bothnian Bay (Torne) – are shared with both Finland and Norway. For these two RBDs, an international agreement and a permanent co-operation body are in place (designated as category 2 cooperation). Sweden shares six other RBDs – Bothnian Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Bothnian Sea (Trondelagsfylkene), Bothnian Bay (Nordland), Bothnian Bay (Troms), and Skagerrak and Kattegat (Glomma) – with Norway. It is reported that international agreements on water management without permanent co-operation mechanisms are in place in these six RBDs (designated as category 3 cooperation). The assessment of the first RBMPs reported that Sweden had close cooperation on water management with Norway and that a cooperation body was in place (designated as category 2 cooperation) . Sweden has continued to have close co-operation with Norway and Finland and it appears that Sweden's cooperation with neighbouring countries has strengthened which indicates that there has been a reporting error in WISE The RBMPs for the shared RBDs between Norway and Sweden are established according to the following principles: each national RBMP has two parts: one comprising the parts of the district in its own country, and a second part covering the international sections of the district (developed by the other country's authorities). The second part is an attachment to the national part of the RBMP. The entire document is provided for consultation in both countries. For further information, see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There was no evidence of significant changes in the information reported to WISE. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: It is recommended that the more detailed sub-basin plans are reported as formal parts of the RBMPs and formally reported to the Commission and made available to the public, as they include important supplementary information. Assessment: Sweden did not report sub-plans to WISE, in the second cycle, but has informed that sub plans for some RBDs have been reported in appendices to the RBMPs and others made available on websites. Consequently, Sweden has partly fulfilled this recommendation. ·Recommendation: Sweden needs to ensure full co-operation with neighbouring countries, including the correct designation of trans-boundary RBDs and co-operation on measures to ensure achievement of the environmental objectives. Assessment: Sweden has continued to have close co-operation with Norway and Finland. This includes reporting on the identification of transboundary surface water bodies, but not for transboundary groundwater bodies . The delineation is coordinated with joint methods partly in place. It is not clear if this extends to the correct designation of RBDs; five transboundary RBDs are designated, and managed as part of larger RBDs in Sweden, but reported separately. Although Sweden and Norway have established common RBMPs, there is insufficient information on cooperation on measures to assess this aspect of the recommendation. It appears; however, that Sweden's cooperation with neighbouring countries has strengthened and that the recommendation is to a great extent fulfilled. .



Topic 2 Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There was an overall decrease in the number of river water bodies (-3 %) ( Table 2.1 ) from the first to the second cycle. There has been an increase in the number of lake water bodies of 3 %, with the highest increase in the North Baltic Sea RBD, 24 %. The RBMPs explained that in the first cycle the conditions of some water bodies were too heterogeneous, so re-delineation was carried out to improve homogeneity within each water body in terms of type, status and pressures. Some water bodies have been removed as they did not fulfil the criteria for water body delineation. The numbers of coastal water bodies increased by 8 % with the highest increases in the Bothnian Sea RBD (33 %) and North Baltic Sea RBD (13 %). The RBMPs explained that some transitional water bodies were redefined as coastal water bodies, because it was not possible to distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. For coastal waters, the geographical conditions have also been used for delineation, distinguishing open coastal waters from bays and sounds and harbour areas. The criteria for delineating lakes and rivers remained the same in the second cycle with water bodies greater than 1km2 being delineated as separate water bodies and river reaches greater than 15 km length (or catchments greater than 10 km2) as separate water bodies. In the second RBMPs, delineation has also included some smaller water bodies in Protected Areas, water bodies of special ecological value or water bodies impacting an existing water body. Some small water bodies situated in Protected Areas have been delineated as separate water bodies, so their objectives will be in line with that of other water bodies in Protected Areas. For all the other small water bodies outside of Protected Areas there is no information in the RBMPs on how they are delineated and managed . Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Sweden between the second and first RBMPs. It is notable that both the minimum size of rivers and the maximum size have decreased overall. In the second cycle, 97 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 3 % being designated as heavily modified and less than 1 % artificial. Overall there was very little change in the numbers of heavily modified and artificial water bodies between the first and second RBMPs, less than 1 % difference ( Figure 2 .1). The water use and physical alteration have been reported for each water body type. The numbers of groundwater bodies increased by 10 % as shown in Table 2.3 and it was explained in the RBMPs that this was due to updated mapping. For groundwater, some water bodies have been split, others merged, and others have been changed in terms of their geographic distribution. New groundwater bodies used for drinking water supply have been delineated. In the future, more groundwater bodies are proposed to be delineated if they are connected to groundwater-dependent surface water bodies or ecosystems. There were 19 territorial water bodies reported in the second RBMP, but none were reported in the first RBMP. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Sweden on how water bodies have evolved between the first and second RBMP. The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, with 217 water bodies created, 223 split and 552 deleted. Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Sweden for the second and first RBMPs Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 SE1 4 089 21 732 1 687 6 631 0 0 110 7 162 2016 SE1TO 664 4 668 273 858 0 0 3 80 2016 SE2 6 864 26 594 3 643 8 435 0 0 85 5 038 2016 SE3 624 4 972 423 2 909 0 0 167 7 220 2016 SE4 1 033 9 433 495 4 177 0 0 178 10 076 2016 SE5 1 672 12 409 807 8 866 0 0 110 4 109 2016 SE1102 47 121 18 25 0 0 0 0 2016 SE1103 64 160 52 74 0 0 0 0 2016 SE1104 3 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 2016 SE5101 32 180 23 49 0 0 0 0 2016 Total 15 092 80 282 7 422 32 025 0 0 653 33 685 2010 SE1 4 221 21 405 1 627 6 851 0 0 100 7 178 2010 SE1TO 655 4 538 268 892 0 0 3 81 2010 SE2 7 295 27 038 3 635 8 445 0 0 64 5 042 2010 SE3 623 4 942 340 2 887 19 120 148 7 104 2010 SE4 968 8 931 478 4 169 0 0 177 10 075 2010 SE5 1 650 12 048 790 5 776 2 61 110 5 143 2010 SENO1102 48 154 18 30 0 0 0 0 2010 SENO1103 69 223 52 87 0 0 0 0 2010 SENO1104 3 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 2010 SENO5101 31 175 23 50 0 0 0 0 2010 Total 15 563 79 466 7 232 29 192 21 180 602 34623 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Sweden in the second and first cycle. Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 SE1 0.02 160.14 5.31 0.01 262.39 3.93 0.15 2329.07 65.11 2016 SE1TO 0.03 239.37 7.03 0.02 329.85 3.14 6.81 39.62 26.8 2016 SE2 0.03 93.75 3.87 0 456.27 2.32 0.5 710.56 59.27 2016 SE3 0.03 41.32 7.97 0.04 377.36 6.88 0.16 643.66 43.23 2016 SE4 0.03 51.89 9.13 0.07 1850.48 8.44 0.4 885.84 56.61 2016 SE5 0.05 49.11 7.42 0.03 3087.68 10.99 0.15 349.04 37.36 2016 SE1102 0.25 12.26 2.58 0.11 17.87 1.4 2016 SE1103 0.18 10.15 2.5 0.01 28.05 1.43 2016 SE1104 0.73 8.61 4.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 2016 SE5101 0.25 17.17 5.63 0.07 10.16 2.15 2010 SE1 0 160.15 5.07 0.01 262.44 4.21 0.81 2334.18 71.78 2010 SE1TO 0.02 233.15 6.93 0.04 330 3.33 6.84 39.75 26.89 2010 SE2 0.02 94.12 3.71 0 456.33 2.32 0.5 1049.69 78.79 2010 SE3 0 41.31 7.93 0.1 528.57 8.49 0.77 33.53 6.31 0.16 644.11 48 2010 SE4 0 51.89 9.23 0.07 1850.77 8.72 0.4 885.96 56.92 2010 SE5 0.02 49.15 7.3 0 2013.77 7.31 22.96 37.64 30.3 0.15 898 46.75 2010 SENO1102 0.13 21.16 3.2 0.1 17.88 1.65 2010 SENO1103 0.18 13.6 3.22 0.03 28.05 1.68 2010 SENO1104 0.69 8.61 4.26 4.12 4.12 4.12 2010 SENO5101 0.25 17.18 5.66 0.06 10.17 2.17 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Sweden for the second and first cycle

Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 SE1 622 0.01 271.25 6.57 2016 SE1TO 74 0.08 306.05 22.58 2016 SE2 832 0 5152.46 12.88 2016 SE3 574 0 447.7 2.97 2016 SE4 667 0.01 1820.60 22.97 2016 SE5 539 0 888.1 12.87 2016 SE1102 2016 SE1103 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2016 SE1104 2016 SE5101 2 0.2 0.94 0.57 2016 Total 3311 2010 SE1 594 0.01 271.62 6.73 2010 SE1TO 61 0.08 306.43 26.84 2010 SE2 779 0 5,155.95 13.76 2010 SE3 529 0 447.72 3.09 2010 SE4 580 0.01 1837.01 26.32 2010 SE5 477 0 888.45 13.9 2010 SENO1102 2010 SENO1103 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2010 SENO1104 2010 SENO5101 2 0.2 0.94 0.57 2010 Total 3023 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Sweden designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Sweden between the second and first cycles. Note that transitional waters are not delineated in the second cycle. Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Groundwater Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial Aggregation 3 209 5 1 Change 107 698 140 changeBothAggregationAndSplitting 20 1 changeCode 111 51 5 changeExtendedArea 13 11 changeReducedArea 1 5 1 Creation 286 217 190 19 Deletion 21 552 33 noChange 2895 13600 6964 596 Splitting 20 223 56 49 Total water bodies before deletion 3332 15644 7455 653 19 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 3311 15092 7422 653 19 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Data for transitional water bodies was not reported. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river and lake water bodies have been identified in all the following RBDs: Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Bothnian Sea (Trondelagsfylkene), Bothnian Bay (Nordland), Bothnian Bay (Troms), and Skagerrak and Kattegat (Glomma). In addition, transboundary lake water bodies have been identified in Bothnian Bay (Torne) and coastal water bodies in the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD. No transboundary groundwater bodies have been reported to WISE . Coordination on delineation of transboundary water bodies has been carried out. The joint methods are partly in place, including no longer clipping a transboundary water body in two different national parts, but rather delineating it as a whole, based on type, pressures and status, regardless of the national border passing through it. There are; however, differences in the delineation of lakes, between Norway, Finland and Sweden, with Norway and Finland using 0.5 km2 as the limit for delineating a lake water body, while Sweden sometimes uses 1 km2 as the limit, thus not delineating part of the lakes between 0.5 to 1 km2, which are quite a lot of lakes. The water body-ID for transboundary water bodies between Sweden and Norway follows the Swedish ID system, but uses ‘SENO’ in front of the number; however, for the third RBMPs, this will change most likely to using the national water body ID system of the country into which the water flows. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies The Swedish typology uses ecoregion as a basis. The distinction between the Northern and Southern ecoregions are based on differences in freshwater flora and fauna according to the glaciation history in Sweden. The reference conditions for biological quality elements in Swedish water bodies are estimated for each water body, using various modelling techniques, but not for each type, using different ranges of abiotic typology factors than those used in the main typology system. Therefore, it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the typology is biologically relevant for all the national types. There are in total 77 lake water types, 52 river water types, and 27 coastal water types (but no longer any transitional water bodies, see under delineation above) ( Table 2.5 ). In general, the number types decreased between the first and second RBMPs, especially for river water bodies. Member States were asked to report ‘Not applicable’ if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Many national types (heavily modified, artificial, and natural) have been intercalibrate; however, in each of the RBDs there are several river, lake, and coastal water bodies that are reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types, approximately 80 % of river water bodies, 19 % of coastal water bodies, and 16 % of lake water bodies. The RBMPs reported that the Swedish classification system has been successfully intercalibrated for all the biological quality elements for national types that have been linked to common intercalibration types. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Sweden for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 SE1 11 11 18 19 4 4 0 1 SE1TO 8 8 13 13 2 2 0 0 SE2 28 28 37 36 4 4 0 1 SE3 15 15 21 24 6 7 1 1 SE4 22 22 31 32 11 11 0 1 SE5 30 29 34 34 6 7 1 1 SE1102 5 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 SE1103 4 4 6 6 0 0 0 0 SE1104 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 SE5101 6 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 53 52 76 77 25 27 2 1

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Type specific reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality elements, physicochemical quality elements, and hydromorphological quality elements for all coastal water bodies, but not for rivers or lakes, as shown in Table 2.6 . This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential for rivers and lakes. Sweden did not coordinate the identification of type-specific reference conditions with other Member States; however, for the second RBMPs, the reference conditions for transboundary water bodies follows the classification system used in the country into which the water flows. In Sweden, reference conditions are estimated with models for each water body, while in Norway and Finland, the reference conditions are type-specific. The reference conditions for the different biological quality elements are nevertheless intercalibrated for national types corresponding to the common intercalibration types, so to some extent the reference conditions are comparable. Further information on references conditions is provided in Chapter 3 of this report. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Sweden with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological, and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (77) All Some None 100 % 100 % 100 % Rivers (52) All Some None 100 % 100 % 100 % Coastal (27) All 100 % 100 % 100 % Some None Source: WISE electronic reporting Note: Sweden has object-specific reference values in general, which do not appear in Table 6. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside, along with the details of whether groundwater bodies are layered, have been reported. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. In the future, more groundwater bodies are proposed to be delineated if they are connected to groundwater-dependent surface water bodies or ecosystems. 2.1.6Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported to affect the largest proportion (100 % of surface water bodies), followed by dams, barriers, and locks (24 %) ( Figure 2.2 ) In the first cycle, Sweden only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase in the number of occasions where “No significant pressures” were reported between the first and second RBMPs, with an increase in the reporting of point and hydromorphological pressures ( Figure 2.3 ). For groundwater bodies “No significant pressures” was reported most frequently (82 % of groundwater bodies). Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Sweden for the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Sweden in the first and second cycle. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 23186 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 23418 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting

The reasons for the increase in ‘no significant pressures’ being reported for surface waters and the high proportion reported for groundwater could relate to the changes in the methodology for defining pressures as discussed in the next section. For the second RBMP, it was reported that the following significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters: “Exploitation or removal of animals or plants”, “Litter or fly tipping”, “Groundwater – Recharges”, and “Groundwater - Alteration of water level or volume”. For groundwater it was reported that 25 significant pressures were not assessed, these were surface water specific pressures such as dams and hydrological changes. In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was chemical pollution (100 % of surface water bodies), followed by altered habitats due to morphological changes (41 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). Sweden did not report on impacts in the first cycle. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Sweden for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting For surface waters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction, and water flow pressures. For surface water bodies, significance of pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds. New and more reliable classification of biological quality elements were established after a national classification project WATERS (ending in 2013). This allowed a more confident assessment of pressures than what was feasible for the first RBMPs. Sweden has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures, developing a set of new methods for each of the major pressure/impact categories: nutrient enrichment, acidification, contamination by hazardous substances (both River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances), and morphological pressures. They also identified qualitative criteria for assessing significant pressure from invasive species. For some pressures, threshold values are given to assess whether a pressure is significant or not. Significant pressures were defined for all water bodies in less than good status, as well as water bodies at good status, where there was a risk of deterioration. For pressures in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, the tools used to assess significant pressures are monitoring data, GIS analyses, models estimating the absolute and relative magnitude of the pressure, and threshold values linking the pressure to the boundary for the sensitive biological quality elements, as well as the qualitative criteria for invasive species. The approach used to link the significance for pressures to status was described as follows: ·For nutrients and contaminants, point sources and diffuse sources are identified in all water bodies in less than good status, and models were used to estimate the source apportionment, depending on land use, including agriculture, forestry, wetlands, industries, polluted sites, roads, railroads, atmospheric deposition. ·For contaminants, water, sediments and biota for groups of Priority Substances were considered and for relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·For acidification, threshold values were defined based on the boundary for acidification sensitive biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements. Reference conditions were estimated with the MAGIC model. Water bodies with pH > 6 (or 6.5 depending on reference pH) were considered not to be acidified. For water bodies with no data, results are extrapolated from comparable water bodies (grouping). ·For morphological pressures, guidance was developed in a separate project called HyMo and is summarized in a report called Vattenmyndigheterna 2013b, VMHyMo-Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, dnr. 537-2599-15 Rapport: Påverkanstryck på morfologiska förhållanden (not accessible online). ·For invasive species, the criteria for identifying whether there is a significant pressure based on whether the invasive species is outcompeting native species, it can be poisonous, spread disease, hybridise with native species, or is a predator on native species and/or affect food webs. For groundwaters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. For abstraction and artificial recharge and other pressures expert judgement was used. The significance of pressures is reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives but the significance of pressures has not been defined in terms of thresholds. 2.1.7Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In five of the eight RBDs (with groundwater bodies delineated) between 1.5 and 37 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported for all RBDs. Further information is provided in Chapter 6 of this report. In four of the eight RBDs between 1.5 % and 6 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. Further information is provided in Chapter 5 of this report. 2.1.8Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives

There are some inconsistencies in the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Bothnian Bay RBD, Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants has been reported at the surface water body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the PoM. Similarly in the Bothnian Sea RBD, Diffuse – Urban runoff has been reported at the groundwater body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the PoM . Further information on the PoM is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. The Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2027 have not been reported but this is optional. Further information on Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status is provided in Chapter 4 and on measures in Chapter 12 of this report. 2.1.9Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standard Directive (2008/105/EC) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the Environmental Quality Standard Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). Sweden reported whether or not each of the Priority Substances was included in an inventory. Only the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs reported on the number of substances within the inventory, which ranged from only six to eight Priority Substances (i.e. five RBDs did not report any inventory for any of the Priority Substances ). Insufficient monitoring was the reason given in the RBMP for not including more. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For some substances in the inventories (including some substances deemed relevant at RBD level), Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented; for the others a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was used, while the Guidance Document recommends to apply at least Tier 1 + 2 for substances relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There was an overall decrease in the number of river water bodies (-3 %). There has been an increase in the number of lake water bodies of 3 %, with the highest increase in the North Baltic Sea RBD of 24 %. The numbers of coastal water bodies increased by 8 % with the highest increases in the Bothnian Sea RBD (33 %) and North Baltic Sea RBD (13 %). Some transitional water bodies were redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not possible to distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. The numbers of groundwater bodies increased by 10 %. There were 19 territorial water bodies reported in the second RBMP but none were reported in the first cycle. In the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported to affect the largest proportion of surface water bodies, followed by dams, barriers and locks. In the first cycle, Sweden only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase in the number of occasions where “No significant pressures” were reported between the first and second RBMPs. For groundwater bodies, “no significant pressures” was reported most frequently. The reasons for the increase in ‘no significant pressures’ being reported for surface waters and the high proportion reported for groundwater likely relates to the changes in methodology of the identification of pressures. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Sweden needs to lower its minimum size threshold for lakes to ensure all relevant water bodies are included. Assessment: In the first RBMP, the minimum threshold for lake water bodies that was used in all RBDs was 1km2 and there was national guidance for smaller lakes but the details were lacking. In the second RBMP the minimum threshold for lake water bodies that was used in all RBDs was reported to be 1km2. For the Bothnian Bay (Troms) RBD 4km2 was the mimimum lake size used in the first RBMP and 1km2 in the second RBMP. It was reported in the RBMPs that some small water bodies situated in Protected Areas have been delineated as separate water bodies, so their objectives will be in line with that of other water bodies in Protected Areas. Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled for the second RBMP . ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: This recommendation applies to a number of topics. In terms of characterisation of significant pressures, for surface waters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction and water flow pressures. For surface water bodies, significance of pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives and therefore would be linked to water status. For groundwaters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. For abstraction and artificial recharge and other pressures, expert judgement was used. The significance of pressures is also reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives. Sweden has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures since the first RBMPs, developing a set of new methods for each of the major pressure/impact categories: nutrient enrichment, acidification, contamination by hazardous substances and morphological pressures. They also identified qualitative criteria for assessing significant pressure from invasive species. For some pressures, threshold values are given to assess whether a pressure is significant or not. Therefore this part of the recommendation has been fulfilled. In terms of intercalibration, Swedish authorities have clarified that the intercalibration had not been completed by the time of adoption of the first RBMPs, but that the process was due to be completed in 2011. However, in each of the RBDs, there are several river, lake and coastal water bodies that are reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types in the second RBMP, approximately 80 % of river water bodies, 19 % of coastal water bodies and 16 % of lake water bodies. The RBMPs reported that the Swedish classification system has been successfully intercalibrated for all the biological quality elements for national types that have been linked to common intercalibration types. Therefore this part of the recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Sweden needs to complete the initial characterisation, to enable the establishment of WFD compliant monitoring networks. It is important to complete this first stage of the WFD implementation process to ensure cost effective implementation of subsequent steps. Assessment: There has been an increase in the number of lake water bodies, coastal water bodies and groundwater bodies between the first and second RBMPs, with a slight decrease in river water bodies. There is also evidence of further characterisation of groundwaters. The RBMPs explained that the transitional water bodies were redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not possible to distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. The number of water types is assessed against the previous recommendation. It therefore appears that characterisation has been updated and this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: There is no clear link between status assessment and the need for pressure reduction (nutrients, chemical pollutants and hydromorphology) and measures. Many of the measures are "administrative" (new investigations, monitoring etc) Assessment: This recommendation relate to more than one topic. In terms of significant pressures, in the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported to affect the largest proportion of surface water bodies, followed by dams, barriers and locks. In the first cycle, Sweden only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase in the number of occasions where “No significant pressures” were reported between the first and second RBMPs. For groundwater bodies “No significant pressures” was reported most frequently. These changes are likely a result of the changes to the methodology of the assessment of pressures. Sweden has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures since the first RBMPs, developing a set of new methods that are linked to status objectives. Based on the available information it appears that these recommendations have been fulfilled.

Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second RBMPs and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Information on monitoring programmes was reported from eight RBDs in Sweden. Programmes were designed in terms of surface water or groundwater and for each in terms of purpose – surveillance and operational, plus quantitative for groundwater. For most RBDs and water categories, there were programmes for surveillance and operational monitoring. In one RBD (Bothnian Bay (Nordland)), only lakes were included in a monitoring programme even though rivers were also reported for this RBD. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring A major difference between the first and second RBMPs is that no transitional water bodies were identified for the second RBMPs, while 21 transitional water bodies were identified for the first and had been monitored. There is also another major difference in the information reported for the first RBMPs. The Commission Staff Working Document on the first RBMPs includes values for the number of monitoring sites. Sweden resubmitted some of its information to WISE in November 2012, including for surface water monitoring sites. The resubmitted values are significantly different from those in the Commission Staff Working Document: for example 40 river surveillance sites in the Bothnian Bay RBD were shown in the Commission Staff Working Document and 560 in the resubmitted information to WISE. The comparisons here are made with the resubmitted data on the first RBMPs. Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Sweden for the second and first RBMPs. NB - For reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP SE_1 956 542 450 57 155 57 SE_2 746 531 410 171 137 95 SE_3 634 328 748 329 252 213 SE_4 1208 704 725 301 291 175 SE_5 1860 1869 941 644 309 174 SE_5101 33 38 17 14 SE_1103 0 0 2 0 SE_1TO 75 18 86 8 2 1 Total by type of site 5512 4030 3379 1524 0 0 1144 714 Total number of monitoring sites used for operational and surveillance monitoring 6210 3597 0 1157 first RBMP SE_1 560 445 373 98 69 56 SE_2 960 655 602 312 145 61 SE_3 393 353 419 359 11 11 174 175 SE_4 921 787 642 485 360 334 SE_5 1454 1624 716 768 6 6 154 157 SE_5101 15 20 10 15 Total by type of site 4303 3884 2762 2037 17 17 902 783 Total number of monitoring sites 8187 4799 34 1685 Sources: WISE electronic reporting Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Sweden Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 86 CHE - Chemical status 510 846 309 9 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 18 47 ECO - Ecological status 5960 3270 905 7 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 113 461 119 5 OPE - Operational monitoring 4030 1524 715 7 SEA - International network of a sea convention 25 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 83 73 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 5512 3379 1146 16 Total sites irrespective of purpose 6210 3597 1157 16 Source: WISE electronic reporting For all three water categories (six RBDs), more sites were used for surveillance than for operational monitoring for the second RBMPs. Overall in the six RBDs (with data for both the first and second RBMPs), 5437 sites were used for surveillance monitoring compared to 4012 for operational monitoring. Comparing the six RBDs with data for both the first and second RBMPs shows that there has been an overall increase in the numbers of surveillance sites in coastal waters (+27 %), lakes (+19 %) and rivers (+26 %) from the first to the second RBMPs. There were differences between the RBDs, with significant decreases in numbers in all three water categories in the Bothnian Sea RBD. In contrast, there was a decrease in the number of operational sites overall in the six RBDs in coastal waters (-9 %) and lakes (-26 %). For coastal waters, the decrease was only in one of the six RBDs; whereas all six RBDs showed a decrease in the numbers of lake operational monitoring sites. Overall, there was a 3 % increase in the number of operational river sites, with three RBDs showing an increase and three a decrease. For the first RBMPs, Sweden reported information on monitoring for six RBDs, while for the second RBMPs information on monitoring was reported on eight of the 10 RBDs. Based on the comparison of the same six RBDs for both the first and second RBMPs, it seems that the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring has increased: 64 % of coastal water bodies had surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs and 45 % for the first. These proportions are 29 % and 27 % for lakes, 20 % and 15 % for rivers. There was a similar increase in the proportion of coastal and river water bodies included in operational monitoring but a small decrease in the proportion of lakes. Monitored quality elements Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of surface waters for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.

For the second RBMPs there were still gaps in the biological quality elements reported to be monitored. Angiosperms are not monitored in any of the RBDs with coastal waters, and in one of them (Bothnian Bay), macroalgae are also not monitored . The monitoring of lakes does not include phytobenthos in any RBD, benthic invertebrates are not included in three of the seven RBDs with lakes, macrophytes in four and fish in two. Macrophytes were not reported to be monitored in all seven RBDs with rivers and benthic invertebrates in one RBD. Benthic invertebrates were reported to be monitored in territorial waters, even if ecological status does not apply there. Morphological conditions are not monitored in any water category or RBD in Sweden: this is a major gap. Hydrological regime is also not monitored in coastal waters and, for one RBD, in lakes, again a significant gap. There are also gaps in the physicochemical quality elements monitored. Thermal conditions and salinity conditions are not reported to be monitored in any RBD or water category. Acidification status is also not monitored in coastal waters, and the same applies to oxygenation conditions in lakes in three of the eight RBDs with lakes and in rivers in six of the seven RBDs with rivers. Transparency conditions are also not monitored in lakes in three of the eight RBDs with lakes.



Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Sweden (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). NB - Quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. Some Member States reported “other aquatic flora” rather than the component sub-quality elements, macrophytes, phytobenthos, angiosperms and macroalgae. Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Rivers No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Coastal Yes Yes No Yes No No No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Rivers No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Coastal Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Source: WISE electronic reporting Compared to the situation for the first RBMPs, macrophytes are still missing in rivers, phytobenthos in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters: there has been no change or progress. For the second RBMPs, nitrogen is now monitored in coastal waters and in rivers and lakes, where phosphorous is monitored, indicating that there has been some progress in terms of monitoring physicochemical quality elements in coastal waters. Compared to the first RBMPs, hydrological regime is now monitored in rivers and lakes but not in coastal waters, which again indicates some progress. Morphological conditions are still not monitored in any water bodies, so there is no progress with this group of quality elements. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six-year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton, this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. Operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six-year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. None of the 10 biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring in rivers, lakes and coastal waters was sampled at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites. The largest proportion of sites that met or exceeded this minimum recommended frequency was for phytoplankton in coastal waters (95 % of sites included in surveillance monitoring), benthic invertebrates in lakes (90 %) and benthic invertebrates in rivers (87 %). Two of the 10 biological quality elements used for operational monitoring of rivers, lakes and coastal waters were sampled at least at the minimum frequency at all of the sampling sites used for operational monitoring: macroalgae and benthic invertebrates in coastal waters. Fish in lakes were only sampled at the minimum frequency at 11 % of sites and phytobenthos in rivers at 64 % of sites. Monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants When it comes to River Basin Specific Pollutants, 29 different ones were reported to be monitored overall in Sweden; nine were reported to be monitored in biota (five in fish, four in other biota), seven in settled sediment and 28 in water. Biota, settled sediment and water were monitored in all three water categories (coastal waters, lakes and rivers). Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants for the first and second RBMPs.



Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants for the first RBMPs in Sweden. NB - The data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member States reported information at the site level, meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs RBMP Rivers Lakes Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 362 402 145 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants - - -

Sources: WISE electronic reporting River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in a few water bodies (Table 10). However, the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants done for the second RBMPs represents a significant improvement compared to the first RBMPs, when these pollutants were not reported to be monitored in any RBD (Table 10). In terms of the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in Sweden as a whole, zinc was monitored at the most sites (750), followed by copper (670), chromium (510) and arsenic (358). According to section 1.3.4 of Annex V of the WFD the minimum recommended sampling frequency for the surveillance monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants is four times in one year of the six-year RBMP cycle. None of the River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in water in Sweden was monitored at this or a higher frequency at all the sites where they were monitored. For 12 pollutants none of the sites was monitored at least at the recommended frequency, while for three pollutants over 50 % of sites were sampled at the minimum frequency. In Sweden as a whole approximately twice as many sites were used for the surveillance monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in water than for operational purposes. The degree to which the minimum recommended frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants for operational monitoring was met was greater than for surveillance monitoring. For three River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring all sites were monitored at least at the minimum frequency of once every three months, for 11 substances between 50 and 100 % of sites were sampled at least at the minimum frequency, while for 10 substances none of the sites was. Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the minimum required frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants (“Other Pollutants”) applies. Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in Article 3(2)(c) of EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this required frequency of once per year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment. Nine different River Basin Specific Pollutants are reported to be monitored in settled sediment in Sweden. For only one pollutant are all the sites monitored at the minimum frequency during the RBMP cycle. Seven different River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in biota (unspecified), fish or other biota. For around 50 % of pollutant/matrix combinations, all sites were monitored at least once every year. The monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants is reported to be used for status assessment for all substances and matrices. The analytical methods are in line with Article 4(1) of Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for 21 substances, or Article 4(2) for the remaining identified substances except the two estradiols (CAS 50-28-2-17 and 57-63-6-17). Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring for each status/potential class.



Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Sweden for the first and second RBMPs. NB - No differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Sweden. Source: WISE electronic reporting. A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no None of the coastal waters, lakes and river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring are monitored for all required biological or hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements, which shows a potential lack of compliance with the WFD. Operational monitoring of surface water bodies The biological quality element most often used for operational monitoring of coastal waters is phytoplankton (in 68 % of the water bodies included in operational monitoring): benthic invertebrates were used in 36 % and macroalgae in 12 %. Three physicochemical quality elements were used in operational monitoring with nitrogen conditions being used in the largest proportion (76 %). Hydromorphological quality elements were not used at all.

Four biological quality elements were used for the operational monitoring of lakes, with phytoplankton being most often used (35 % of lakes included in operational monitoring). Four physicochemical quality elements were also used in operational monitoring with determinands indicative of acidification status being used in most lakes (71 %). Three percent of lakes in operational monitoring were also monitored for hydrological regime: morphological conditions were not monitored at all. Fish was the most frequently used biological quality element in the operational monitoring of rivers (41 % of water bodies in operational monitoring): phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were also used. Acidification status was monitored in the largest proportion of rivers included in operational monitoring (62 %) followed by phosphorus conditions (38 %) and oxygenation conditions (0.4 %). Five percent of rivers in operational monitoring were also monitored for hydrological regime, while morphological conditions were not monitored at all. Although ecological status does not apply there, territorial waters were also included in operational monitoring with benthic invertebrates, transparency, oxygenation and nitrogen conditions being used. Overall, 39 % of lake water bodies, 33 % of river water bodies and 12 % of coastal water bodies included in operational monitoring were not monitored for any biological quality element. In terms of operational monitoring, 56 % of coastal, 23 % of lakes and 18 % of river water bodies at less than good ecological status/potential were included: this implies that the status of other water bodies at less than good status/potential have been derived by other means i.e. from results of surveillance monitoring, by grouping or expert judgment. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Sweden reported 25 monitoring sites from five RBDs that were part of an international network of a sea convention. 3.1.2Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water bodies Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Sweden for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . Transitional water bodies were delineated for the first RBMPs, but none were delineated for the second. Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Sweden based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i). High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no



Overall there was no improvement of ecological status/potential since the first RBMPs. The majority of water bodies are in less than good ecological status/potential and the ecological status/potential has apparently deteriorated in many rivers and lakes. This apparent deterioration is largely due to changes in classification methods and to the inclusion of River Basin Specific Pollutants in the classification. Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Sweden for the first RBMPs with that for the second and that expected by 2015.

Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Sweden for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. NB - The period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 1990 to 2014. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Sweden is shown in Figure 3.4 . Figure 3.4 Expec