COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Sweden Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 84 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Sweden Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 12 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 13 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 14 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 16 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 16 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 16 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 17 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................. 17 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ..................... 18 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 19 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs .................... 19 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 20 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 21 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 22 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 23 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 23 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 23 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 24 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 25 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 25 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 25 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 26 

4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 27 

1 

 
 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 27 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 27 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 29 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 29 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 30 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 30 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 31 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 31 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 32 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 34 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ...................................................................................... 35 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 36 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 37 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 37 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 38 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 38 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 38 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 40 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 42 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 43 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 43 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 44 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 44 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 45 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 46 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 47 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 50 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 50 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 52 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 56 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 59 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 62 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 63 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures ................................................................... 64 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RBD 
RBMP 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for 

significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential  adverse 
consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 

economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this 
flood  risk.  By  the  end  of  2011,  Member  States  were  to  prepare  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 

Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 
Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard and Risk Maps 

(FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare 
Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Sweden1
.  It  assesses  the  FRMPs  and  Member  States 
reporting  to  the  European  Commission  in  2016.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 

template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

  Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs2 as per Articles 7 
and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their 
measures 

  Selected FRMPs: Sweden has reported 18 FRMPS, one for each APSFR. Five FRMPs 
have  been  selected  for  the  assessment  to  provide  geographical  coverage  across  the 

country. The following APSFR and Units of Management (UoMs) are covered in  the 
assessment of Sweden: 

o  Älvsbyn (SE1A8932) in the Bothnian Bay UoM (SE1); 
o  Falun (SE2A6504) in the Bothnian Sea UoM (SE2); 
o  Stockholm (SE3A0336) in the North Baltic Sea UoM (SE3); 
o  Kristianstad (SE4A2980) in the South Baltic Sea UoM (SE4); 
o  Karlstad (SE5A5704) in the Skagerrak and Kattegat UoM (SE5). 

1   The  present  Member  State  assessment  reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  FRMPs  prepared  earlier. The  situation  in  the  MSs  may 
have altered since then. 
 Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 

2  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
Whereas a  key role of the Commission is to check compliance  with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information 
to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

Sweden has designated ten UoMs under the FD. These ten UoMs correspond to the ten River 

Basin Districts (RBDs) that Sweden designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). 
Of these ten UoMs, five have large territories with exclusively national jurisdiction, and five 

are  smaller  transboundary  UoMs  of  which  four  are  joint  UoMs  with  Norway  and  one  with 

6 

SENO1102Norwegian SeaGulfofBothniaBalticSeaSkagerrakKattegatNorthSeaSEFIVHA6RURUNOSE5NOSE5RUBYNO1103SE2SE1SE5SE4SE3SE1TOSE4SENO5101SENO1103SENO1104FIVHA3FIVHA4FIVHA1FIVHA5LT1100FIVHA2NO5101DK1EE2EE1NO5102LVDUBANO1102FIVHA7NO5103NO1104NO5106NO1101LVVUBANO1105DK2LVGUBANO5105LT3400NO5104LVLUBALT2300NOSE1EE3LT4500DK3FIWDANOSE2NOSE20100200km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finland3.  The  transboundary  UoMs  have  a  limited  number  of  inhabitants,  and,  with  the 
exception of the Torne River UoM (SE1TO), do not have any APSFRs. 

Sweden has designated  18 Areas of Potentially  Significant  Floods Risk  (APSFRs) across six 
UoMs. Sweden prepared 18 FRMPs, one for each APSFR. The FRMPs were prepared by the 

county administrations in which the APSFR is located. All FRMPs in Sweden were established 
as regional plans by the County Administrative Boards4 by 22 December 20155. 

The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) oversaw a process of national coordination 
for the FRMPs; however, there are differences in the approach to the plans6 – for example in 
terms of number and structure of objectives, detail provided on measures and extent of active 
involvement of stakeholders – across the County administrations.  

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Sweden, including the UoM code, the name, 
and  the  number  of  APSFRs  reported.  It  also  shows  if  all  documents  required  for  each  UoM 
were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE7 – the FRMP as a PDF and 
the reporting sheet as an XML.   

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Sweden 

UoM 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SENO1102 

SENO1103 

Name 

BOTHNIAN BAY 

BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL 
DISTRICT) 

BOTHNIAN SEA 

NORTH BALTIC SEA 

SOUTH BALTIC SEA 

SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT 

BOTHNIAN SEA (INTERNATIONAL 
DRAINAGE BASIN 
TRONDELAGSFYLKENE - SWEDEN) 

BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL 
DRAINAGE BASIN NORDLAND - 
SWEDEN) 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

2 

1 

4 

4 

2 

5 

- 

- 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

3   Under the WFD, the equivalent five transboundary RBDs are administered under the five large national RBDs.  
4   The Administrative Boards that head the Counties are appointed by the national government. 
5   As per the Förordning (2009:956) om översvämningsrisker, the national Flood Risk Regulation. 
6   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  this  is  due  to  the  many  naturally  different  geographic  regions  and 
differences in how populated  these are: Some areas are very scarcely populated and some areas are densely 
populated. 

7   http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

 
 
                                                 
UoM 

Name 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

SENO1104 

BOTHNIAN BAY (INTERNATIONAL 
DRAINAGE BASIN TROMS - SWEDEN) 

SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT 
(INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN 
GLOMMA - SWEDEN) 

SENO5101 

TOTAL 

- 

- 

18 

No 

No 

No 

No 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  https://www.msb.se/sv/Forebyggande/Naturolyckor/Oversvamning/Oversvamningsdire

ktivet/Steg-3-Riskhanteringsplaner/ 

Overview of the assessment 

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. 

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence:  

  Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was 

not met. 

  No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met. 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”.  

  Strong  evidence:  Clear  information  provided,  describing  an  approach  followed  in  the 

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have 
been established  

Strong evidence 

Sweden has set four national objectives. 
The FRMPs have then set more detailed 
objectives of three types: specific, 
measure-oriented and knowledge 
objectives (not all FRMPs assessed have 
set all three types, however). 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Strong evidence  

Sweden’s four national objectives address 
the potential adverse consequences of 
floods.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

No evidence  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong evidence  

No objectives to reduce the likelihood of 
flooding were identified among the 
national objectives or the objectives of the 
five FRMPs assessed (though measures in 
the FRMPs address this)8.  

Three of the five FRMPs assessed include 
knowledge objectives to improve the 
information base on flood risks. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

...environment  

Strong evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

One of the four national objectives states 
that human health shall not be significantly 
affected by floods. 

One of the four national objectives states 
that economic activities of major societal 
value shall not be exposed to long 
disruption caused by floods. 

One of the four national objectives states 
that the environment and natural values 
shall not be affected by floods. 

One of the four national objectives states 
that cultural heritage shall be protected 
from floods. 

Sweden has reported 138 individual 
measures and 210 aggregated measures, for 
a total of 348 measures, across all six 

8   Sweden subsequently informed that it is relying on renewable energy and hydropower produced in large rivers 
is a part of its renewable energy mix. Also, in general for “regulated” rivers, the regulation strategy is crucial 
for  reducing  the  likelihood  of  floods  and  has  been  used  extensively  for  decades  by  the  power  industry  to 
reduce  the  likelihood  for  spring  flood  events.  Sweden  further  informed  that  for  Stockholm,  a  large  and 
important measure to reduce flood risk (including likelihood) in the area is not included in the FRMP since it 
is relevant to the whole area around lake Mälaren and will take a long time (more than the execution of the 
FRMP) to build: “Project Slussen” is a project to build a new sluice/floodgate to partly reduce the flood risk in 
Stockholm; the cost will be approx. EUR 700 m. Financial costs are shared by the municipality, the region and 
the state. The new sluice will, according to the plan, be finished in 2025. Further, for Vännäs the likelihood of 
flooding and consequences have been assessed in the action programmes under the Civil Protection Act and 
the risk and vulnerability assessment that must be performed. There was also a regional risk and vulnerability 
assessment performed. In general, likelihood has been assessed for the flood hazard mapping. Moreover, for 
Vännäs,  measures  are  in  place  to  improve  dykes.  In  addition,  for  Uppsala,  a  measure  will  carry  out  a  pilot 
study  to  examine  the  possibility  of  retaining  water  upstream  of  Uppsala.  In  Karlstad,  a  measure  includes 
cooperation with hydropower plant owners and other stakeholders to find methods to reduce the probability of 
flooding. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

UoMs where FRMPs were prepared. All 
five FRMPs assessed have identified 
measures. 

Sweden has reported the priority for over 
90 % of its measures (320 of 348 
measures). Two of the five FRMPs 
assessed (for Falun and Älvsbyn) refer to 
the prioritisation of measures, and the Plan 
for Älvsbyn provides information on the 
methods used for prioritisation9. 

Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as...  

...costs & benefits10  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention12  

Some evidence  

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed – the 
plan for Älvsbyn – refers to cost-benefit 
analysis; however, this FRMP only makes 
a brief reference without indicating if or at 
what stage such an analysis was carried 
out. 

Flood extent was considered in the PFRA 
and FHRM stages, which were used in the 
preparation of FRMPs assessed. 

No reference was found in the five FRMPs 
assessed of consideration of flood 
conveyance11. 

One of the five FRMPs assessed has an 
objective that refers to wetlands for water 
retention. Across the FRMPs, however, 
few measures for natural water retention 

9   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  the  national  guidance  document  for  the  production  of  FRMPs  calls  for 
prioritisation to be made among the goals for the measures and describes how prioritisation should be made. 
Sweden  moreover noted that  in other FRMPs beyond those  assessed here,  such as the  plans  for Örebro and 
Lindesberg, the measures are prioritised and the FRMPs contain brief descriptions of the method used. 

10   Sweden recalled subsequently that according to Art. 7 and Annex A.5 of the FD, a cost-benefit-analysis is not 
mandatory. It is a question of subsidiarity, if the Member states consider C/B analysis at the level of measures 
as a relevant aspect. Further, Sweden recalled that according to the FD and the reporting documents, cost and 
benefits are not compulsory information to report. In the Swedish guidance document on how to produce the 
FRMPs,  costs  and  benefits  are  on  a  voluntary  basis,  except  for  the  international  plan  for  the  APSFR 
Haparanda, which is an area shared with Finland. 

11   Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  for  the  Karlstad  FRMP  (one  of  the  FRMPs  assessed),  the  topography  and 
geometry of river Klarälven make it hard to use this method except for protection of specific objects of high 
value.  This  is  often  the  case,  according  to  Sweden,  due  to  distinct  and  narrow  topography  and  geometry  of 
river valleys. Sweden also noted that a method for flood conveyance is provided in the Göteborg FRMP.  
12   Sweden subsequently stated that the benefits of natural retention measures are so far uncertain when it comes 

to significant floods, which are the focus of the FD.  

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environmental 
objectives of the WFD  

Some evidence  

...spatial planning/land use  Some evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

measures (NWRM) were identified, 
notably in the one for Älvsbyn13. 

In at least two of the five FRMPs assessed, 
the environmental objectives of the WFD 
were considered. 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed include 
measures for spatial planning: one example 
is a guidance document to be prepared for 
planning in proximity to flood-prone 
rivers14. 

Two of the five FRMPs assessed indicate 
that nature conservation was considered in 
the measures (though one FRMP states that 
no major negative impacts were identified); 
moreover, reducing adverse consequences 
to the environment is one of the four 
national objectives15. 

One FRMP, for Falun, refers to 
consideration of navigation and port 
infrastructure in a measure. 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Sweden incorporated climate impacts in 
the APSFR and FHRM stages, which were 

13   Sweden subsequently informed that for the Karlstad FRMP (one of the FRMPs assessed), there is a very large 
basin, and the topography of the river makes it hard to use these methods except in the northern and southern 
parts, where natural flood areas reduce water speed and resulting levels. In the FRMP for Vännäs, NWRM are 
not  possible  measures  as  the  river  is  a  Natura  2000  protected  river  (also  protected  by  Environmental  Act 
1998:808).  For  the  Örebro  and  Lindesberg  FRMPs,  on  semi-large  and  large  rivers  and  for  the  more  severe 
floods, there is limited support for the idea that wetlands can help to a large extent. Sweden moreover noted 
that for the Jönköping and Värnamo FRMPs, natural retention measures have been considered but not deemed 
to  be  sufficient  enough  to  reduce  the  likelihood  and  consequences  of  significant  floods.  For  the  Uppsala 
FRMP,  they  are  considered  relevant  in  the  future:  at  this  stage,  the  focus  has  been  on  information  and 
knowledge  and  measures  include  a  mapping  of  green  infrastructure  and  an  investigation  of  possibilities  to 
increase the retention of water upstream. 

14   Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  the  Örebro  and  Lindesberg  FRMPs  have  both  objectives  and  measures  for 
spatial planning. Sweden also noted that the Göteborg FRMP refers to a thematic supplement to the guidance 
for the regional/comprehensive plan on flood management. (These FRMPs were not assessed.)  

15   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  the  FRMP  for  Edsbyn  discusses  the  implications  of  a  Natura  2000  site 
within its area, and a specific measure for this is proposed. Moreover, in the FRMP for Vännäs there are some 
measures  regarding  environment,  for  example  that  flood  risk  management  measures  should  not  affect  the 
ability to comply  with environmental quality standards for water, that the environment and natural values in 
the  area  should  not  be  polluted  in  a  flood  and  that  flooding  should  not  have  far-reaching  or  extensive 
environmental consequences. The FRMPs for Lindesberg and Örebro both cover areas where nature reserves 
are  found  in  the  downstream  parts  of  APSFRs:  these  have  been  taken  into  account,  but  they  are  mostly 
wetlands; consequently, floods are not a major issue as long as severe pollution is prevented. (These FRMPs 
were not assessed.) 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured 
with WFD  

Some evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

used to develop the objectives and 
measures of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the 
FRMPs assessed provide limited 
information on potential climate change 
impacts on floods16. 

Sweden has good cooperation with Finland 
and Norway on water management. In one 
UoM, Sweden worked with Finland on 
joint mapping (for the transboundary 
APSFR on Torne River). The FRMPs 
assessed, however, provide few details on 
international coordination17. 

The five FRMPs assessed provide limited 
information on coordination with the 
WFD.18 

All five FRMPs assessed included 
mechanisms to ensure the active 
involvement of stakeholders. The 
information provided, however, varies19.  

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Swedish FRMPs assessed. 

16   Sweden subsequently noted that for Kristianstad (one of the FRMPs assessed), information can be found in the 
Regional  action  plan  for  climate  change  (Regional  handlingsplan  för  klimatanpassning  för  Skåne  2014  – 
Insatser  för  att  stärka  Skånes  väg  mot  ett  robust  samhälle).  For  the  Örebro  and  Lindesberg  FRMPs,  the 
accompanying Environmental Assessments both refer to the regional action plan for climate change adaption 
(Handlingsplan för klimatanpassning i Örebro län) in their introductions.  

17   Sweden subsequently noted that for the Haparanda FRMP, annual meetings are held and a public information 

booklet has been prepared jointly with Finland: 
https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.276e13411636c95dd932cc8/1526893006643/Oversvamningsguide
_Tornedalen.pdf   

18   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  at  the  time  when  the  decisions  on  the  FRMPs  were  taken  there  was  a 

delay in the decisions about the RBMPs, creating uncertainty about the final content of the RBMP. 

19   Sweden subsequently informed that river coordination  groups established in the  mid-1990s, involving  many 
stakeholders, have been consulted during the  whole  FD  process. Sweden also  noted that for the Örebro and 
Lindesberg FRMPs, early consultations took place on the draft Plans with each municipality in 2014. These 
were held in order to get input regarding, for example, objectives. In summer and autumn 2015, the  FRMPs 
were  sent  for  consultation  to  all  stakeholders  and  were  made  available  to  the  public  online.  A  small 
questionnaire  was  added  to  the  message  to  receive  more  feedback.  The  FRMPs  were  also  presented  at  the 
public meeting that was part of the consultation of the WFD in Örebro, held in February 2015. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table 3 

Good practices in the Swedish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Sweden has good cooperation with neighbouring Finland and Norway 
on water management and carried out joint mapping with Finland for 
a shared APSFR. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

Planning/implementing of 
measures and their 
prioritisation for the 
achievement of objectives. 

Public consultation  

The objectives in the FRMPs contain specific and measurable 
elements. 

One of the five FRMPs assessed provides specific and measurable 
elements for its measures, such as specific locations.  

Whereas it is not clear if the ‘specific’ objectives set in the FRMPs 
will be achieved when the measures linked to them are completed, 
across all five FRMPs assessed, measures are linked to objectives. 

While the information available on consultation and active 
involvement of stakeholders varies, it is clear that the preparation of 
the FRMP for Karlstad included a variety of mechanisms for 
outreach, including the creation of Joint Flooding Cooperation 
Groups, for the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders.  

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on the impacts 
of public consultation and active involvement of stakeholders on the 
final plans. 

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Swedish FRMPs 

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Swedish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

While all five FRMPs assessed provide summary maps and text of their 
APSFRs and FHRMs, not all provide internet links to more detailed 
online maps; moreover, some of the links provided do not work20.  
The FRMPs refer only to fluvial floods (these were the only type 
addressed in the prior steps of the cycle). 

Planning/implementation of 
measures and their 

The five FRMPs assessed lack information on the cost of measures and 
only one provides information on funding sources21.  

20   Sweden subsequently noted that all FHMs are available on  the Floods Portal on the web site of the  Swedish 

Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB): https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html.   

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 
prioritization for the 
achievement of objectives.  

Areas for further development identified 

The FRMPs assessed provide little information on natural water 
retention measures and few discuss interactions between their measures 
and nature conservation in noticeable extent. 

Although Sweden has reported priorities for over 90 % of its measures, 
the FRMPs themselves provide little information on prioritisation and do 
not indicate the method used to determine priorities.  

Use of cost-benefit analysis 
in the FRMPs assessed.  

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed refers to the use of cost-benefit 
analysis, without indicating if indeed or at what stage this was used. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed. 

The FRMPs provide little information on potential climate impacts and 
to a very limited extent describe how such potential impacts were 
considered in the selection and design of their measures. 

Coordination with national climate change policy does not appear to 
have taken place systematically. 

Flood risk governance.  

Three of the five FRMPs assessed do not indicate if a Strategic 
Environmental Assessment was undertaken22. 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide limited information on 
coordination with the WFD and with Sweden’s River Basin Management 
Plans (RBMPs).23 

The five FRMPs assessed vary in terms of the types of objectives set, 
extent of information on measures, and the extent of public consultation 
and active involvement of stakeholders.  

Recommendations 

Based on the  reported information  and the  FRMPs assessed, the following  recommendations 
are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): 

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  the  FRMPs  should  provide  specific  and  measurable 

 

information on their measures. 
Information  on  estimated  costs  and  funding  sources24,  information  on  priorities  across 
measures and the methods used for prioritisation should be provided in the FRMPs.  

21   Sweden subsequently noted that for the Örebro and Lindesberg FRMPs, each measure will be funded by the 

stakeholder in charge of it.  

22   For Kristianstad there is information available on the internet: 
http://www.ebhportalen.se/Sv/Inventeringsrapporter/Inventering%20av%20L%C3%A5ngebro%20industriomr%C

3%A5de%20i%20Kristianstad%202007.pdf   

and 
https://www.kristianstad.se/sv/naringsliv-och-arbete/tillstand-regler-och-tillsyn/fororenade-omraden/sanering-av-

kemtvatt-langebro/   

23 Sweden subsequently informed that at the time when the decisions on the FRMPs were taken there was a delay 

in the decisions about the RBMPs, creating uncertainty about the final content of the RBMP. 

24   Sweden subsequently informed that knowledge and funding gaps have led to many measures to increase the 

knowledge and estimate the cost (and investigate the funding) of larger measures. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
  Consider making greater use of natural water retention measures across its FRMPs. 

  The FRMPs should indicate how the costs and benefits of measures were considered in 

the selection and prioritisation of methods.  

  All  FRMPs  should undergo  a  Strategic Environmental  Assessment (SEA) procedure, if 

relevant, information on the results should be provided in the final Plans;  

  Sweden should reinforce coordination between its FRMPs and RBMPs. 

  Sweden  should  promote  the  use  of  common  approaches  across  the  FRMPs  where  this 
adds  value25,  e.g.  in  areas  including  the  prioritisation  of  measures,  the  identification  of 
specific  and  measurable  information  on  measures,  coordination  and  synergy  with  the 
preparation  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  approach  to  public  consultation  and  active 

involvement of stakeholders. 

  Pluvial  and  coastal  flooding  should  be  addressed  in  the  next  FRMPs  depending  on  the 

findings of the second PFRA. 

 

It will be important to ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as 
appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an 

accessible format, including digitally. 

  How potential impacts of climate change were considered should be reflected stronger in 
the  second  cycle,  including  systematic  coordination  with  national  climate  change 
adaptation strategies. 

25   Sweden subsequently cited the example of cooperation between the County administrations in the North Baltic 
Sea RBD, where throughout the work for the FRMPs (and also prior to that) this cooperation led to common 
ideas and approaches regarding objectives, public consultations, etc. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.   Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the 

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Sweden  has  reported  18  FRMPs,  each  prepared  by  a  County  administration.  Each  FRMP 
covers a single APSFR. Sweden did not report any overarching plan or policy document.  

Sweden did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allowed Member States to make use 
of previous FRMP for the first cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements 

set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

Sweden has reported 18 FRMPS, of which five have been assessed: the FRMPs for assessment 

were chosen to provide geographic coverage across the UoMs.   

The following FRMPs were assessed:  

Table 5 

UoMs assessed in Sweden 

UoM code 

SE1 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

UoM Name 

BOTHNIAN BAY 

BOTHNIAN SEA 

NORTH BALTIC SEA 

SOUTH BALTIC SEA 

SKAGERRAK AND KATTEGAT 

FRMP assessed (and APSFR code) 

Älvsbyn (SE1A8932) 

Falun (SE2A6504) 

Stockholm (SE3A0336) 

Kristianstad (SE4A2980) 

Karlstad (SE5A5704) 

Note: the name of the FRMP refers to the name of the main urban area addressed by the plan, 
not the County whose County Administrative Board prepared the plan. 

16 

 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  present  the  conclusions  of  the  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessment 

(PRFA)  as  a  summary  map  showing  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risk  (APSFRs).  All 
FRMPs  assessed  also  contain  a  textual  description  which  includes  tables  listing  the  APSFRs 
and an overview of the methodology employed and the results of previous steps.26 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide additional, more detailed maps showing flood extent. 

The FRMP for  Falun  (SE2A6504) contains maps showing flood extent for 50, 100 and 200-
year  floods.  The  FRMPs  for  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Stockholm  (SE3A0336)  and  Karlstad 

(SE5A5704)  all  contain  additional  detailed  100  year  flood  maps  showing  sites  exposed  to 
flooding.27  

The APSFRs  and other  flood  maps can be viewed on a web portal  provided by the Swedish 
Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)28 29: 

https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html  (a  link  to  this  site  was  not, 
however, found in the FRMPs themselves30).  

No reference to conveyance routes was found in the FRMPs assessed31. The FRMPs indicate 
that climate change impacts were modelled and incorporated in the PFRA (see section 5).  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Sweden  has  strong  bilateral  coordination  on  water  management  with  its  neighbours,  Finland 
and Norway32. Sweden carried out a joint project with Finland on mapping of risk areas along 
the Torne River in  the  Bothnian Bay (International  District)  UoM (SE1TO):  this  was carried 
out  as  part  of  an  Interreg  IV  A  project,  Detailed  inundation  planning  in  the  lower  part  of 

26   FRMP Älvsbyn (SE1A8932); FRMP Falun (SE2A6504); FRMP Stockholm (SE3A0336); FRMP Kristianstad 

(SE4A2980); FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704). 

27   FRMP Älvsbyn (SE1A8932); FRMP Falun (SE2A6504); FRMP Stockholm (SE3A0336); FRMP Kristianstad 

(SE4A2980); FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704). 

28   Viewed  in  June  2018.  It  appears  that  the  current  maps  show  100  and  200-year  floods  and  an  ‘estimated 
maximum’  for  a  worst  possible  scenario,  roughly  estimated  as  a  10,000-year  flood.  Only  the  FRMP  for 
Karlstad (SE5A5704) provided a working link to this portal. 

29   Sweden  informed  subsequently  that  the  county  administration  boards’  websites  have  been  changed  recently 
and  old  internet  links  do  not  work  since  May  29th,  2018.  The  Swedish  Civil  Contingencies  Agency  (MSB) 
plans to incorporate the links into the Floods Portal available on the MSB website in the 4th quarter of 2018. 
30   Sweden  explained  subsequently  that  this  portal  was  produced  to  facilitate  the  work  of  the  European 

Commission. 

31   Sweden subsequently informed that for the Karlstad FRMP, the topography and geometry of river Klarälven 
makes it hard to use this method except for protection of specific objects of high value. (This is often the case 
in  Sweden  due  to  distinct  and  narrow  topography  and  geometry  of  river  valleys.)  Sweden  also  noted  that  a 
method for flood conveyance is provided in the Göteborg FRMP.  

32   See the RBMP assessment for Sweden. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
Tornio  River33.  Sweden  does  not  have  joint  APSFRs  with  Norway,  and  neither  the  FRMPs 
assessed nor Sweden’s reporting sheets provide information on coordination at the PFRA stage 
with Norway34.  

2.1.2  Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps 

The FRMPs indicate that the PFRA was used to develop the FHR maps, which also drew on 

further  modelling,  including  of  climate  change.  Both  processes  were  coordinated  by  the 
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which produced overall reports for both the PFRA and 
the FHRMs35.  

2.2 

Presentation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  in  the 
FRMPs 

The flood hazard and flood risk maps are presented in all of the five FRMPs assessed in maps 
for each APSFR showing fluvial flood risks.  

In  none  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  the  FHRMs  present  risks  from  pluvial  floods,  seawater 
floods,  groundwater  floods,  floods  originating  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures,  or 

floods  from  no  specific  sources  or  more  than  one  source  of  flooding.  According  to  the 
assessment of Sweden’s FHRMs, pluvial and coastal floods were not assessed in the FHRMs, 

separate maps for floods from artificial water bearing structures were produced but these were 
not  included  in  the  FHRMs,  and  groundwater  floods  were  assessed  as  not  relevant  for 
Sweden36. 

Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in four of the five FRMPs 
assessed37:  those  for  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932);  Falun  (SE2A6504);  Karlstad  (SE5A5704)  and 

33   The  river  is  spelled  Torne  in  Swedish  and  Tornio  in  Finnish.  For  the  joint  project,  see:  http://2007-
2013.interregnord.com/en/projects/north/3-regional-functionality-and-identity/detailed-inundation-planning-
in-the-lower-part-of-tornio-river.aspx 

34   Sweden  informed  subsequently  that  Sweden  and  Norway  have  established  since  1995  a  river  coordination 
group for the River Klarälven and any issues are discussed within the group. Meetings are taking place two 
times  per  year,  or  ad  hoc  if  the  situation  calls  for  it.  The  flood  situation  and  the  FD  implementation  is 
discussed  continuously.  There  is  a  yearly  cooperation  and  coordination  when  it  comes  to  the  spring  flood 
situation. A report is produced each week in order to be able to handle and monitor the spring flood situation. 
35   Identifiering  av  områden  med  betydande  översvämningsrisk    Steg  1  i  förordningen  (2009:956)  om 
översvämningsrisker – preliminär riskbedömning (Identification of areas with significant flood risk Step 1 of 
the Flood Risk Regulation (2009: 956) - Preliminary Risk Assessment): 
https://www.msb.se/Upload/Nyheter_press/Pressmeddelanden/Slutrapport_PFRA_MSB.pdf 

  And Framställning av hotkartor enligt förordningen (2009:956) om översvämningsrisker (Preparation of risk 

maps according to the Flood Risk Regulations (2009: 956)): 
https://www.msb.se/Upload/Forebyggande/Naturolyckor_klimat/oversvamning/PM_hotkartor.pdf  

36   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  SE  – 

Sweden, November 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/SE%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

37   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  12,  Översvämningskartering  utmed  Piteälven;  FRMP  Falun 

(SE2A6504), p.14; FRMP Stockholm (SE3A0336), p.5; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704), p.45. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Stockholm  (SE3A0336). As for maps of the APSFRs, some of these links no longer work38. 
The MSB’s web portal provides online FHRMs: 

  https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html.  

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

As described above, Sweden carried out joint mapping with Finland for the shared APSFR in 
the Torne UoM (SETO1).  

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The five FRMPs assessed39 and Sweden’s reporting sheets indicate that the FHRMs were used 
to develop the FRMPs: 

  The FHRMs were used to set  priorities for flood risk management  (including locations 

and economic activities for protection); 

  Specific objectives on flood risk reduction were defined based on the FHRMs; 

 

In one FRMP assessed (Stockholm), measure types and locations were defined based on 

the FHRM. 

The FHRMs were also presented as part of the public consultation process (see section 7).  

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 

since  December  2011,  or  in  the  FHRMs  since  December  2013,  indicated  in  the  FRMP.  The 
FRMPs  did  not  indicate  any  changes.  For  the  second  cycle,  however,  Sweden  has  reviewed 
and updated the APSFRs40. 

2.4 

Areas  for  further  development  in  the  earlier  assessment  of  the 
FHRMs 

The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Sweden41: 

38   Same situation as for APSFR links, see earlier foot note. 
39   FRMP Älvsbyn (SE1A8932); FRMP Falun (SE2A6504); FRMP Stockholm (SE3A0336); FRMP Kristianstad 

(SE4A2980); FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704). 

40  According  to  documents  for  the  second  cycle  of  the  FD:  Revision  for  upcoming  period,  available  at: 
https://www.msb.se/sv/Om-MSB/Nyheter-och-press/Nyheter/Nyheter-fran-MSB/25-omraden-med-betydande-
oversvamningsrisk-har-identifierats/. 

41   Based on: European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: 
SE – Sweden, November 2014. The report notes that Swedish authorities explained that the methodology and 
information base for pluvial and coastal flooding was not complete. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/SE%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

19 

 
 
                                                 
 
  Flood sources: risks of pluvial and coastal floods are not included. After the assessment 
of  the  maps  was  completed,  the  Swedish  authorities  explained  that  pluvial  and  coastal 
floods will be taken into consideration for the second cycle of implementation of the FD.  

  Consequences  on  the  environment:  Sweden  did  not  report  clearly  on  what  the  adverse 
consequences  on  the  environment  would  be  in  the  mapping  of  the  risk  from  low 

probability floods.  

The second area for further development is partly addressed within the FRMPs assessed: 

  As  noted  above,  none  of  the  five  FRMPs  referred  to  pluvial  and  coastal  floods  and  it 
appears that these had not been incorporated in the FHRMs at the time of the preparation 

of the plans.  

  The five FRMPs assessed have addressed the lack of mapping of adverse consequences 
on the environment. This has been done with  respect to protected areas such as Natura 

2000  sites  and  to  contaminated  sites  (and  thus  pollution  risks),  though  the  information 
provided varies among the five FRMPs.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified:  

  Sweden  has  good  cooperation  with  neighbouring  Finland  and  Norway  on  water 

management and carried out joint mapping with Finland for a shared APSFR.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  While  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  summary  maps  and  text  of  their  APSFRs  and 
FHRMs,  not  all  provide  more  detailed  maps  or  internet  links  to  more  detailed  online 

maps; moreover, some of the links provided do not work.  

  The  FRMPs  refer  only  to  fluvial  floods,  as  these  were  the  only  type  addressed  in  the 

prior steps. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The  Swedish  Civil  Contingencies  Agency  (MSB)  set  four  overarching,  nationally  defined 

objectives that have been used as the basis for objective setting in the five FRMPs examined. 
These objectives are:  

  Human health shall not be significantly affected by floods; 

  The environment and natural values shall not be significantly affected by floods; 

  Cultural heritage shall be protected so that valuable objects and knowledge are not lost 

by floods; 

  Economic  activities  of  major  societal  value  shall  not  be  exposed  to  long  disruption 

caused by floods.  

The  MSB  recommended  that  FRMPs  refine  these  four  national  objectives  in  more  detailed 
objectives  across  three  major  types:  specific  objectives  that  are  measurable  and  concrete; 

measure-oriented  objectives  that  specify  specific  actions  to  be  taken  to  support  the  specific 
objectives;  and  knowledge  objectives  that  address  key  uncertainties,  also  supporting  the 

specific objectives.  

Table 6 

Types of objectives in the Swedish FRMPs  

FRMP 

Falun 

Älvsbyn 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

Stockholm 

Number of 
objectives 

Specific objectives 

Measure-oriented 
objectives 

Knowledge 
objectives 

30 

9 

16 

17 

14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  structure  their  objectives  in  terms  of  the  four  national  objectives. 

The FRMPs use the structure of three objective ‘types’ in different ways (see Table 6 above):  

  The FRMP for Älvsbyn defines nine specific objectives;  

  The  FRMP  for  Falun  differentiates  the  four  overarching  thematic  objectives  into  30 

objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives; 

  The FRMP for Karlstad presents 16 specific and knowledge objectives but no measure-

oriented objectives; 

  The  FRMP  for  Kristianstad  differentiates  the  four  overarching  thematic  objectives  into 

17 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge objectives; 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The FRMP for Stockholm defines 14 specific objectives. 

Based on both the national objectives and the objectives defined in the FRMPs assessed42: 

  The  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  of  floods  in  all  five  FRMPs 

assessed; 

  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented in some but not all FRMPs; 
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures43 in some but not all FRMPs. 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

All five FRMPs define ‘specific objectives’ (using Swedish terminology) that contain specific 
and  measurable  elements.  Examples  include  the  following  objectives  from  the  FRMP  for 

Älvsbyn: 

  No  cultural  heritage  objects  or  areas  classified  as  cultural  heritage  of  national  interest 

shall be permanently damaged due to a flood; 

  Electricity  distribution  installations  should  not  be  affected  by  floods  with  a  100-year 

return time. 

The  FRMPs  for  Falun  and  Kristianstad  also  include  ‘measure-oriented’  objectives  that  are 
linked  to  measures.  For  example,  the  FRMP  for Falun  has  an  objective  that:  by  2018,  Falun 

municipality has established forms of cooperation on flow regulation and preventive measures 
in  the  smaller  streams  of  the  municipality  (examples  of  preventive  measures  may  be 

preservation of wetlands and maintenance of streams). 

The ‘knowledge’ objectives found in the Falun, Karlstad and Kristianstad FRMPs also can be 
linked to measures. For example, the Karlstad FRMP contains the following objective: There is 

detailed knowledge of which flow levels in Klarälven and water levels in Vänern that can lead 
to serious flooding consequences for cultural heritage.  

All the FRMP objectives set specific aims or actions that can be measured; however, the year 
of achievement is lacking for almost all objectives44, the exception being measure-oriented and 
knowledge objectives in FRMP Falun45. 

42   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
43   Non-structural measures include measures such as flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding as well 

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

44   Sweden informed subsequently that the objectives should be achieved within the period 2016-2021, which is 

the period covered by the first FRMPs. 

45   Sweden subsequently commented that for measures, the year of achievement is understood as the end of 2021 

by when the revision of the FRMPs should be made. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

Sweden’s  four  national  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  from  floods  on 

human health, cultural heritage, the environment and economic activity. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

None of the objectives at national level address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding or 
flood  risk46,  and  none  of  the  objectives  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  directly  address  these 
either47. Yet, indirectly the FRMP Falun addresses this in one objective that aims to increase 
the knowledge about coordinated regulation of the river discharges at the municipally owned 
dams. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The  Swedish  Civil  Contingencies  Agency  coordinated  the  identification  of  the  national 
objectives  and,  as  indicated,  provided  recommendations  for  the  identification  of  FRMP 

objectives.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  vary  in  terms  of  the  extent  of  information  provided  on  the 

development of their objectives. The FRMP for Karlstad, notably, refers to the involvement of 
representatives of municipalities and private stakeholders, as well as academic experts, in the 

development of the plan, including the objectives. For all five FRMPs, objectives were part of 
the draft plans provided for public consultation (see section 7).  

46   The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD. 

47   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  in  general  for  regulated  rivers,  the  regulation  strategy  is  crucial  for 
reducing the likelihood of floods and has been used extensively for decades by the power industry to reduce 
the  likelihood  for  spring  flood  events.  Sweden  also  explained  that  the  first  cycle  of  the  Floods  Directive  in 
Sweden and as such most of the objectives and measures are focused on knowledge gaps rather than structural 
measures to reduce flood risk. In guidance documents, objectives are set to reduce the likelihood of flooding in 
work related to the FD.  
Sweden  also  noted  that  many  measures  in  the  FRMPs  and  the  general  national  strategies  on  river  flow 
regulation  consider  flood  risks  and  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  and  the  consequences  of  flooding.  For 
Stockholm,  a  large  and  important  measure  to  reduce  flood  risk  (including  likelihood)  in  the  area  is  not 
included  in  the  FRMP  since  it  is  relevant  to  the  whole  area  around  lake  Mälaren  and  will  take  a  long  time 
(more than the execution of the FRMP) to build: “Project Slussen” is a project to build a new sluice/floodgate 
to partly reduce the flood risk in Stockholm; the cost will be approx. EUR 700 m. Financial costs are shared 
by the municipality, the region and the state. The new sluice will, according to the plan, be finished in 2025. 
Further, for Vännäs the likelihood of flooding and consequences have been assessed in the action programmes 
under the  Civil Protection Act and the risk and vulnerability assessment that  must be performed. There was 
also a regional risk and vulnerability assessment. In general, likelihood has been assessed as part of the flood 
hazard mapping. Moreover, for Vännäs, measures are in place to improve dykes. In addition, for Uppsala, a 
measure  will  carry  out  a  pilot  study  to  examine  the  possibility  of  retaining  water  upstream  of  Uppsala.  In 
Karlstad,  a  measure  includes  cooperation  with  hydropower  plant  owners  and  other  stakeholders  to  find 
methods to reduce the probability of flooding. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
 
In  the  modelling  of  flood  for  the  FHRMs,  climate  change  impacts  were  included  and 
consequently climate considerations are incorporated in the objectives set.  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Sweden has an articulated system  of objectives, with  four overarching objectives set  at 
national level and three types of objectives – specific, measure-oriented and knowledge 

objectives – set in the FRMPs.  

  The objectives in the FRMPs contain specific and measurable elements.  

24 

 
 
 
 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Sweden  has  reported  138  individual  measures  and  210  aggregated48  measures,  for  a  total  of 
348 measures49, across all six UoMs where FRMPs were prepared (please see tables A1 to A4 
in  Annex  A  for  further  details).  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  provide  a  definition  of 

individual and aggregated measures.  

The  measures  cover  all  four  aspects  of  flood  risk  management.  Across  all  six  UoMs  where 

FRMPs were prepared: 

  162 measures (47 % of the total 348 measures) are for prevention; 

  41 measures (12 %) are for protection; 

  137 measures (39 %) are for preparedness; 

  six measures (2 %) are for recovery and review. 

In addition, Sweden reported two ‘other’ measures (less than 1 % of the total).  

The  number  distribution  of  measures  across  the  four  aspects  varies  among  the  UoMs.  For 

example: 

  For  the  North  Baltic  UoM  (SE3),  54  of  79  measures  are  for  prevention  (68  %  of  the 
total),  five  are  for  protection  (6  %),  19  are  for  preparedness  (24  %)  and  one  is  for 

recovery and review (1 %) 

  For  the  Bothnian  Sea  UoM  (SE2),  13  of  48  measures  (27  %  of  the  total)  are  for 
prevention,  five  are  for  protection  (10  %),  27  are  for  preparedness  (56  %),  one  is  for 
recovery and review (2 %) and two are other measures (4 %)  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

The FRMPs assessed do not provide information on the budget.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

Only  one  of  five  FRMPs  assessed  provides  information  on  funding:  the  FRMP  for  Karlstad 

provides  indications  of  funding  sources  for  each  measure.  The  most  common  description  is 

48   The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

49  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
"Within  existing  budget  frames"  as  most  measures  refer  to  actions  by  the  Värmland  County 
administration,  which  is  in  charge  of  the  FRMP  (costs  or  budget  amounts  are  not  provided, 
however) 50 51. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures  

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Karlstad SE5A5704 

✔52 

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

One of the five FRMPs assessed – the plan for Stockholm (SE3A0336) – provides a clear and 
explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

This  FRMP  identifies  facilities  and  sites  of  societal  concern  (such  as  cultural  heritage  sites, 
municipal buildings, utilities, key roads and nature reserves) and sets out measures to address 

their flood risks: one measure, for example, develops a vulnerability analysis for the impact of 
flooding on a school building in Huddinge Municipality. The other FRMPs, however, provide 
less detail.  

The following table lists all the locations indicated for Swedish measures: 

50   Sweden subsequently informed that knowledge and funding gaps have led to many measures that in turn aim 

to increase the knowledge and investigate the cost and funding of larger measures. 

51   Sweden subsequently noted that for the Örebro and Lindesberg FRMPs, each measure will be funded by the 

stakeholder in charge of it.  

52  Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  also  budgets  at  the  national  and  local  levels  will  be  mobilised  for  the 

funding of measures. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 8 

Location of measures  

Älvsbyn 
SE1A8932 

Falun 
SE2A6504 

Karlstad 
SE5A5704 

Kristianstad 
SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific 
risk area  

Water body level  

Object level 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

In all the FRMPs assessed, each measure is linked to one of the FRMP’s objectives. As noted 

in section 3, some of the FRMPs assessed have set measure-oriented objectives and knowledge 
objectives: for these, the objectives should be achieved when the related measures are carried 

out.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  if  the  ‘specific’  objectives  set  in  the  FRMPs  will  be  achieved 
when the measures linked to them are completed.   

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Sweden has reported the location of all 348 measures across the six UoMs with FRMPs (see 
Tables  A5  and  A6  in  Annex  A).  This  information  has  been  aggregated  into  the  following 

categories: 

  The majority of measures, 197 out of the 348 reported, are located at APSFR level (57 % 

of the total); 

  93 of the 348 measures (27 %) are at local level; 

  40 measures (11 %) are in a specific location such as a specific facility or part of a river;  

  eight measures (2 %) are at river catchment level; 

  And for 10 measures (3 %), another location is given. 

The FRMPs assessed also provide varying degrees of detail on the location of measures. For 
example,  the  FRMP  for  Stockholm  provides  detailed  maps  to  indicate  the  location  of  some 

measures.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Sweden has reported the priority for 320 of its 348 measures (see Table A7 in Annex A): 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  20 measures (6 % of the total) are reported as having critical priority;  

  61 measures (18 %) have very high priority; 

  139 measures (40 %) have high priority; 

  88 measures (25 %) have moderate priority; 

  12 measures (3 %) have low priority; 

  For 28 measures (8 %), no priority is indicated. 

Only  one  of  the  five  FRMPs,  however,  clearly  refers  to  a  prioritisation  of  measures.  The 
FRMP for Falun includes a section on priorities. Neither this FRMP nor the other four assessed 
provides information on how the prioritisation of measures was established53.   

Sweden  has  reported  the  timetable  for  all  348  measures  (see  Table  A9  in  Annex  A).  This 

information has been used to identify the completion dates for the measures: 

  66 measures (19 % of the total) are indicated as ongoing; 

  one measure (less than 1 %) is indicated as being completed in 2015; 

  40 measures (11 %) are indicated for 2016; 

  54 measures (16 %) for 2016; 

  43 measures (12 %) for 2018; 

  38 measures (11 %) for 2019; 

  17 measures (5 %) for 2020; 

  74 measures (21 %) for 2021; 

  4 measures (1 %) for dates beyond 2021 (either 2026 or 2028); 

  11 measures (3 %) have other or unclear dates indicated; 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on the timetable for the implementation 

of the measures: 

  The  FRMPs  for  Falun  and  Karlstad  indicate  the  timetables  provided  for  all  measures, 
with  completion  dates  that  range  from  2017  to  2021  (the  FRMPs  indicate  that  the 
completion dates vary according to the size and complexity of the measures) 

  The FRMP for Stockholm provides a timetable and completion dates for some measures 

(for most of the measures where a completion date is indicated, it is 2019) 

  A  timetable  is  provided  in  the  FRMP  for  Älvsbyn  as  well,  yet  with  most  measures 

specified as “ongoing” 

53   Sweden subsequently informed that the national guidance document for the FRMPs calls for prioritisation to 
be  made  among  the  goals  for  the  measures  and  describes  how  prioritisation  should  be  made.  In  Falun, 
prioritisation was based on the expert knowledge in the organisations concerned. Sweden moreover noted that 
in other FRMPs, beyond those assessed here, such as the plans for Örebro and Lindesberg, the measures are 
prioritised and the FRMPs contain brief descriptions of the methods used. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
No information on the timetable was found in the FRMPs of Kristianstad54.  

As the FRMPs are at APSFR level, while Sweden’s reporting is at UoM level, it has not been 

possible to compare the timetables of the two. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Sweden has indicated the level of responsibility for all 348 measures reported (see Table A11 
in Annex A): 

  For  the  great  majority  of  measures  (298  out  of  348,  86  %),  either  municipal  or  county 

governments are responsible; 

  For  20  measures  (6  %  of  the  total),  a  private  company  is  responsible  (a  chemicals 

company and utility companies are mentioned); 

  For 20 measures (6 %), a transport authority is responsible; 

  For seven measures (2 %), other types of authorities are responsible.  

In the FRMPs assessed, the County Administrative Boards themselves are generally indicated 

as main authority responsible for implementation of most measures. The FRMPs to a smaller 
or larger extent also include measures under the responsibility of municipalities or municipal 

companies and state authorities, such state transport authorities. As an example of the smaller 
extent,  the  FRMP  Kristianstad  indicates  that  it  focuses  on  “actions  undertaken  within  the 

county administrative board's own organisation”; still, this plan includes some measures under 
the  responsibility  of  Kristianstad  municipality.  As  an  example  of  a  larger  extent,  FRMP 

Karlstad  includes  measures  under  the  responsibility  of  municipalities,  companies  and  other 
actors as well as measures to be carried out by the County Board itself. For the Falun FRMP, 

the municipality and the municipal Water and Sanitation Company are responsible for most of 
the measures. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Sweden has reported the progress of implementation for all measures (see Annex Table A13): 

  The great majority of measures reported – 217 out of 348 (62 %) – were indicated as not 

started; 

  The remaining measures, 131 (38 %) were indicated as progress ongoing.  

Two of the five FRMPs assessed provide some information on the progress of their measures. 

The  FRMP  for  Karlstad  indicates  the  progress  of  many  measures:  for  example,  a  series  of 

54   Sweden subsequently informed that other FRMPs contain timetable information, for instance, the FRMP for 
Vännäs describes by when measures are expected to be achieved, for example December 2021 or December 
2027.  

29 

 
 
                                                 
measures carried out by the Karlstad Municipality were ongoing, including measures launched 
under  a  municipal  flood  preparedness  plan  in  2010.  This  FRMP  also  indicated  that  other 

municipalities had measures ongoing. Likewise, the FRMP for Kristianstad indicates measures 
undertaken by the Municipality of Kristianstad as ongoing. 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 

has  been  implemented.  While  Sweden  has  provided  information  for  20  measures,  it  appears 
that  many  of  these  entries  refer  to  Swedish  legislation;  nonetheless,  it  appears  that  seven 

measures are associated to the implementation of the Seveso Directive (see Annex A).  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  also  provide  references  to  other  EU  legislation:  The  FRMP  for 

Älvsbyn includes references to the Habitats Directive and the WFD; the  FRMPs for Karlstad 
and Falun  include references to  the WFD; the FRMP for Stockholm  cites the Bathing Water 

Directive and the WFD. All five FRMPs assessed refer to the Seveso Directive, though only 
two the FRMPs for Älvsbyn and Karlstad, indicate that it is relevant for flood measures.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

Spatial planning/land use measures are included in three of the FRMPs assessed: those for 
Falun, Karlstad and Älvsbyn. For example, the FRMP for Falun includes a measure to develop 
a guidance document for planning in proximity of flood prone rivers in the county55. 

Few references to NWRM were found in the five FRMPs assessed, though as noted in section 

3,  the  FRMP  for  Falun  includes  a  measure-oriented  objective  that  mentions  wetlands  as  an 
example of prevention measures, and the FRMP for Älvsbyn includes some NWRM emanating 

from  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  the  RBMP  which  are  also  positive  for  flooding. 
Moreover,  the  FRMP  for  Älvsbyn  notes  that  NWRMs  are  a  useful  approach  to  address 

moderate floods. 

In Sweden’s reporting to WISE for all UoMs, only one measure for type M31 on natural flood 
management56 (a measure in the Skagerrak and Kattegat UoM, SE5) is indicated (see Annex 
A)57.   

55   Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  the  Örebro  and  Lindesberg  FRMPs  have  both  objectives  and  measures  for 
spatial planning. Sweden also noted that the Göteborg FRMP refers to a thematic supplement to the guidance 
for the regional/comprehensive plan on flood management. (These FRMPs were not assessed.)  

56   M31 Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow 
into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of 
infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  Only  the  FRMP  for  Älvsbyn 
indicates  that  nature  conservation  has  been  considered  in  the  development  of  measures,  as 

negative effects might occur. In FRMP for Falun, nature conservation was considered but no 
significant negative impact has been identified58.  

One  FRMPs  assessed,  FRMP  Falun,  makes  a  brief  reference  that  a  measure  shall  take  into 
consideration  navigation  and  port  infrastructure,  a  plan  to  renovate  and  improve  a  quay 

along the Faluå River.  

No  reference  has  been  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  the  river 

channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in any of the five FRPMs assessed59.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

Four out of five FRMPs assessed indicate that implementation will be monitored. The FRMP 

for Karlstad states that all County administrations responsible for FRMPs will report yearly to 
the  MSB  on  progress  of  implementation.60  The  development  of  the  revised  FRMPs  for  the 

second cycle will include an evaluation of the progress towards the achievement of objectives. 

57   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  it  extensively  relies  on  dams  for  hydro-electric  power  production;  the 
dams can during seasonal periods (spring) also function as flood protection. The benefits of natural retention 
measures are so far uncertain when it comes to significant floods. Sweden also noted that for the Jönköping 
and  Värnamo  FRMPs,  natural  retention  measures  have  been  considered  but  not  deemed  to  be  sufficient 
enough  to  reduce  the  likelihood  and  consequences  of  significant  floods.  For  the  Uppsala  FRMP,  they  are 
considered relevant in the future: at this stage, the focus has been on information and knowledge and measures 
include a  mapping of  green infrastructure  and an investigation of possibilities to increase  retention of  water 
upstream the city of Uppsala. Sweden subsequently informed that for the Karlstad FRMP, there is a very large 
basin, and the topography of the river makes it hard to use these methods except in the northern and southern 
parts, where natural flood areas reduce water speed and resulting levels. In the FRMP for Vännäs, NWRM are 
not  possible  measures  as  the  river  is  protected  river  under  the  Environmental  Act.  For  the  Örebro  and 
Lindesberg FRMPs, on semi-large and large rivers and for the more severe floods, there is limited support for 
the idea that wetlands can help to a large extent.  

58   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  the  FRMP  for  Edsbyn  discusses  the  implications  of  a  Natura  2000  site 
within its area, and a specific measure for this is proposed. Moreover, in the FRMP for Vännäs there are some 
measures  regarding  environment,  for  example  that  flood  risk  management  measures  should  not  affect  the 
ability to comply  with environmental quality standards for water, that the environment  and natural values in 
the  area  should  not  be  polluted  in  a  flood  and  that  flooding  should  not  have  far-reaching  or  extensive 
environmental consequences. The FRMPs for Lindesberg and Örebro both cover areas where nature reserves 
are  found  in  the  downstream  parts  of  APSFRs:  these  have  been  taken  into  account,  but  they  are  mostly 
wetlands; consequently, floods are not a major issue as long as severe pollution is prevented. (These FRMPs 
were not assessed.) 

59   Sweden subsequently informed that insurance policies are not a  regional issue and therefore not included in 

the FRMPs (which are regional in nature). 

60   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  all  FRMPs  are  monitored  yearly  by  the  Swedish  Civil  Contingencies 

Agency (MSB). The monitoring reports are published on the authority’s webpage: 

https://www.msb.se/sv/Forebyggande/Naturolyckor/Oversvamning/Oversvamningsdirektivet/Steg-3-

Riskhanteringsplaner/  

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not,  however,  refer  to  a  baseline  against  which  progress  will  be 
monitored and evaluated.61 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development of the second RBMP of the WFD.62 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the 

second RBMP of the WFD  

Älvsbyn 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

Stockholm 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

SE3A0336 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into 
a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and 
RBMP 63  
Coordination between authorities 

responsible for developing FRMP 
and RBMP 64  
Coordination with the environmental 

objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  

The objectives of the FD were 

considered in the preparation of the 
RBMPs a 
Planning of win-win and no-regret 

measures in the FRMP  

The RBMP Programme of Measures 
includes win-win measures in terms 

of achieving the objectives of the 
WFD and FD, drought management 
and NWRM a 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Permitting or consenting of flood 

✔ 

61   FRMP Falun (SE2A6504), Section 9, "Uppföljning"; FRMP Älvsbyn (SE1A8932), Section 11, "Beskrivning 
av  uppföljning  av  planen  och  MKB:n";  FRMP  Stockholm  (SE3A0336)  Section  10,  "Beskrivning  av 
uppföljning av planen och MKB:n"; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 11, "Beskrivning av uppföljning av 
planen  och  MKB:n".  Although  similar  information  was  not  found  in  the  FRMP  for  Kristianstad,  the 
information in the other four plans indicates that this is the common approach for monitoring of all FRMPs in 
Sweden.  

62 Sweden subsequently informed that at the time when the decisions of the FRMPs were taken there was a delay 
in  the  decisions  about  the  RBMPs.  The  outcome  of  the  RBMPs  was  uncertain  and  could  therefore  not  be 
referred to. 

63  Sweden subsequently remarked for the Uppsala FRMP that early consultation was organised together with the 

RBMP. There was ongoing dialogue during the work for the RBMP and the FRMP. 

64  Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  for  the  Falun  FRMP,  when  preparing  the  plan,  cooperation  and 
coordination with RBMP/WFD authorities was undertaken in order to discuss measures from both sides within 
the geographic area.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Älvsbyn 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

Stockholm 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

SE3A0336 

✔ 

✔ 

risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood 

defence maintenance or construction) 

requires prior consideration of WFD 
objectives and RBMPs  

Natural water retention and green 

infrastructure measures have been 
included  

Consistent and compliant application 
of WFD Article 4(7) and designation 

of heavily modified water bodies 

with measures taken under the FD 
e.g. flood defence infrastructure  

The design of new and existing 
structural measures, such as flood 

defences, storage dams and tidal 

barriers, have been adapted to take 
into account WFD Environmental 
Objectives a 
The use of sustainable drainage 

systems, such as the construction of 

wetland and porous pavements, have 
been considered to reduce urban 

flooding and also to contribute to the 
achievement of WFD Environmental 

Objectives  
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

County  administrations  work  on  both  RBMPs  and  FRMPs:  however,  while  five  County 

Administrative  Boards  are  designated  as  Competent  Authorities  within  their  UoMs  for  the 
RBMPs (which may cover the territory of other County Administrations), others may work on 

the FRMPs depending on the location of APSFRs.  

In  general,  the  FRMPs  provide  limited  information  on  coordination  with  the  WFD.  One 

exception  is  the  FRMP  for  Älvsbyn:  an  assessment  of  the  effect  of  RBMP  measures  on 
flooding was carried out, identifying positive synergies for three RBMP measures and neutral 
effects for the others.65 66 

65   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  section  8.1;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  section  6.1;  FRMP  Karlstad 

(SE5A5704), section 9. 

66   Sweden subsequently informed that for the  Falun  FRMP,  measures  under both the FD  and WFD have been 
discussed and coordinated so as not to interfere  with each other. Heeding the WFD’s environmental quality 
standards was a prerequisite for the discussions.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  One  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  provides  specific  and  measurable  elements  for  its 

measures, such as specific locations.  

  Across all five FRMPs assessed, measures are linked to objectives.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  lack  information  on  the  cost  of  measures,  and  only  one 

provides information on funding sources.  

  The FRMPs assessed provide little information on natural water retention measures and 

few discuss interactions between their measures and nature conservation.  

  Although  Sweden  has  reported  priorities  for  over  90  %  of  its  measures,  the  FRMPs 
themselves  provide  little  information  on  prioritisation  and  do  not  indicate  the  method 

used to determine priorities.  

  The  FRMPs  provide  limited  information  on  coordination  with  the  WFD  and  with 

Sweden’s RBMPs.  

34 

 
 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

Climate  change67  was  addressed  at  the  APSFR  stage  in  Sweden:  climate  impacts  were 
calculated  for  16  regional  climate  scenarios  to  2050  and  further  scenarios  up  to  2098.  The 
results were then adapted to the hydrological modelling.  

Climate  impacts  were  also  considered  in  the  preparation  of  the  objectives  for  the  FRMPs. 
Nonetheless,  despite  the  extensive  analytical  work,  the  FRMPs  assessed  provide  few 

references  to  possible  impacts  of  climate  change  on  flood  risks.  The  FRMP  for  Karlstad 
indicates that pluvial floods might become more important in the near future. The FRMP for 

Stockholm states that in the future, water levels in lakes could increase and aggravate fluvial 
floods.68  The  FRMP  for  Falun  refers  to  climate  change  impacts  on  water  discharges  and  on 
floods and landslides.  

The  FRMPs  do  not  refer  to  Sweden’s  national  climate  change  adaption  strategy,  which  was 
integrated into the 2009 Integrated Climate and Energy Strategy69, nor the subsequent regional 
action plans for climate change, which address adaptation70 71.  

No  consideration  of  climate  change  is  included  in  the  measure  description  of  structural 
measures  in  the  FRMPs  assessed.  Nonetheless,  as  noted  above,  modelling  was  used  to 

incorporate  climate  change  into  the  APSFR  maps  and  consequently  the  FHRMs  –  and  these 
stages were in turn used to develop the objectives and measures of the FRMPs.  

67   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  the  issue  of  climate  change  is  generally  an  ongoing  one  and  Sweden 
continues work in many processes. Almost all Swedish measures in the FRMPs are an important part of the 
adaptation to climate change. However, Sweden continues, because the FD has a cycle of six years, measures 
might  not  always  be  reported  as  adaptation  measures.  Consideration  of  climate  change  will  probably  be 
expressed  in  clearer  terms  in  the  next  FRMPs.  Further,  the  Swedish  National  Strategy  for  Climate  Change 
Adaptation  was  adopted  in  spring  2018.  The  2009  report  is  a  “precursor”  to  the  now  adopted  National 
Strategy.  Regional  plans  about  climate  change  adaptation  were  generally  produced  and  adopted 
simultaneously  with the FRMPs. Regional plans are  available at  all regions and produced by all twenty one 
County Administrative Boards These are the same regional governmental organisations that are implementing 
the  FD.  (http://www.klimatanpassning.se/roller-och-ansvar/vem-har-ansvaret/regionala-handlingsplaner-for-
klimatanpassning-1.77455). 

68   FRMP  Karlstad,  p.26;  FRMP  Stockholm,  p.159.  The  prior  steps  and  FRMPs  largely  do  not  address  pluvial 
flooding. This appears to be a gap, as this has been mentioned in other reports and documents as an issue in 
several  parts  of  Sweden  including  Stockholm.  See  for  example:  Stockholms  stad,  The  City  of  Stockholm’s 
Environmental Work, 2017, available at: 
http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/278257/mfv082-miljoarbete_enGB.pdf  

69   Link available at the EEA’s Climate-Adapt Platform: 

https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/sweden  

70   See:http://www.klimatanpassning.se/roller-och-ansvar/vem-har-ansvaret/regionala-handlingsplaner-for-

klimatanpassning-1.77455  

71   Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  the  Environmental  Assessments  for  the  FRMPs  for  Lindesberg  and  Örebro 
(not among the five FRMPs chosen for assessment here) refer to the regional action plan for climate change 
adaption for the Örebro county. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
5.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Sweden  used  advanced  and  detailed  modelling  to  incorporate  climate  change  into  its 
APSFRs and FHRMs, which in turn were used to prepare the objectives and measures of 

the FRMPs. 

The following area for further development was identified. 

  The FRMPs provide little information on potential climate impacts and to a very limited 
extent describe how such potential impacts were considered in the selection and design 
of their measures. 

  Coordination  with  national  climate  change  policy  does  not  appear  to  have  taken  place 

systematically. 

36 

 
 
 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed – the plan for Älvsbyn – refers to cost-benefit analysis; 

however, this FRMP only makes a brief reference without indicating if or at what stage such an 
analysis was carried out. The Älvsbyn FRMP moreover mentions that some measures were not 

pursued following the consultation due to their low cost-effectiveness, but information on how 
this  was  assessed  is  not  provided.  This  and  other  FRMPs  indicate  that  certain  measures  are 
considered cost-effective but do not explain whether this is based on an analysis72, 73.  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Only  one  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  refers  to  the  use  of  cost-benefit  analysis,  but 

without providing details on if or at what stage this was used.  

72   See for example: FRMP Alvsbyn, p.28; Else, p.30 and p.43.  
73   Sweden subsequently noted that in the Swedish national guidance document on how to produce FRMPs, costs 
and benefits are on a voluntary basis, except for the international plan for the APSFR Haparanda, which is an 
area  shared  with  Finland  where  for  example,  it  has  been  carried  out  for  the  enlargement  of  a  dyke  in 
Haparanda. Sweden subsequently also noted that for the Falun FRMP, C/B-analysis has not been deemed to be 
necessary  for  the  types  of  measures  that  are  proposed  in  the  first  FRMP;  however,  these  are  part  of  the 
investigations needed to achieve the knowledge based objectives. Sweden also noted that in the Vännäs FRMP 
(not among the five assessed here), the most cost-effective measures have been prioritised, and in particular 
low or no cost measures were considered in this FRMP.  

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reporting  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities  and  the  UoMs  identified  for  the  FD  have  not  changed.  Sweden  has  not  reported 

new information to WISE since 2010. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs 

assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 
carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 10 

Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs 

Älvsbyn  

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  
Meetings 74 
Other 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Based on information in the reporting sheets and the FRMPs, all five FRMPs assessed refer to 
the  provision  of  information  via  the  Internet,  though  all  five  refer  to  direct  contacts  with 

stakeholders, including mailing and (for three) invitations. Two of the FRMPs assessed refer to 
the use of media, such as newspaper.75 

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: 

74   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  for  the  Stockholm  FRMP,  Stockholm  authorities  took  an  active  part  in 
information  seminars  for  the  public  together  with  the  hearings  for  the  WFD.  Similar  events  took  place  for 
some other FRMPs: For the Örebro and Lindesberg FRMPs, the draft plans were presented at a public meeting 
that was part of the consultation for the WFD, held in Örebro in February 2015. 

75   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 

38 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Älvsbyn 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Via Internet  

Via digital social 
networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions76 

Workshops, seminars or 
conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in 
drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

Other 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The consultations were carried out through direct invitation to public consultation and written 
responses,  and  through  different  types  of  meetings  held  for  the  FRMPs  for  Älvsbyn,  Falun, 

Stockholm and Karlstad. (The stakeholders attending these meeting were additionally expected 
to formulate their views in a written response.)77 

The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: 

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post) 78 
Paper copies distributed at exhibitions 79 
Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) 80 

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority  
Paper copies available at meetings 81 

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

76   Sweden subsequently informed that this method was used for the public. 
77   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 

78   Sweden subsequently indicated that this was the practice for all FRMPs assessed. 
79   Sweden subsequently indicated that this was the practice for all FRMPs assessed. 
80   Sweden subsequently indicated that this was the practice for all FRMPs assessed. 
81   Sweden subsequently indicated that this was the practice for all FRMPs assessed. 

39 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Generally  speaking,  the  FRMPs  were  distributed  as  downloadable  documents  through  the 
internet site of the CA82, or as email attachments.83 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 

development of the five FRMPs assessed: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders 

Älvsbyn 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

Civil Protection 
Authorities such as 
Government 
Departments 
responsible for 
emergency planning 
and coordination of 
response actions 

Flood Warning / 
Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and 
sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business 
(Industry, Commerce, 
Services) 

Non-governmental 
organisations including 
nature protection, social 
issues (e.g. children, 
housing) 
Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional 
authorities  
Academia / Research 
Institutions  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

82   Sweden clarified that the MSB is the only competent authority appointed for the implementation of the Floods 

Directive. 

83   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Älvsbyn 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE1A8932 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

Other * 
Notes: * Other in Sweden refers to road and railroad authorities (in all four FRMPs identified) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

and to cultural heritage authorities in Karlstad as well as a museum in Falun.  

Based  on  the  information  found  in  the  reporting  sheets  and  the  FRMPs,  there  was  a  high 

degree of variability in the involvement of stakeholders across the plans, with a broad range of 
organisations  identified  as  involved  for  the  FRMP  for  Karlstad84.  Moreover,  for  this  FRMP, 
the office responsible for the FRMP also coordinated with County offices not directly involved 
in  water  management,  such  as  the  Cultural  Heritage  section85.  For  Kristianstad,  information 
was found only on the involvement of municipality of Kristianstad.86 

The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: 

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory 
groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical 
meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Älvsbyn 
SE1A8932 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

84   Sweden informed that river coordination groups (established more than 20 years before the FD was adopted) 
involving many stakeholders have been consulted during the whole FD process. For example, for the Vännäs 
FRMP, the River Coordination Group of Ume- and Vindelälven was informed and the FRMP discussed.  
Sweden also noted subsequently that for the Örebro and Lindesberg FRMPs, early consultations took place on 
the  draft  Plans  with  each  municipality  in  2014.  These  were  held  to  receive  input  regarding,  for  example, 
objectives  and  delineations  for  continued  work.  In  summer  and  autumn  2015,  the  FRMPs  were  sent  for 
consultation to all stakeholders and were made available to the public online. A small questionnaire was added 
to the message in to receive more feedback. The FRMPs were also presented at the public meeting that was 
part of the consultation of the WFD in Örebro, held in February 2015. 

85   Sweden subsequently informed that, for all FRMPs in Sweden, all sectors (e.g. planning, nature conservation, 
agriculture,  cultural  heritage)  in  the  County  Administrative  Boards  were  involved  and  consulted  when  the 
plans were produced.  

86   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 

41 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  extent  of  information  reported  on  mechanisms  for  active  involvement  varies  across  the 
five  FRMPs  assessed.  For  all  five  plans,  workshops  and  technical  meetings  were  held  with 

stakeholders.  

In Karlstad, as indicated above, a broad range of stakeholders were involved, and the County 

administration  organised  an 
in  2014  with  stakeholder 
initial  “cooperation  meeting” 
representatives  to  discuss  objectives.  For  this  FRMP,  the  County  administration  maintained 

regular  dialogue  with  the  municipality  of  Karlstad;  moreover,  a  group  of  stakeholders  – 
including the Swedish Armed Forces, Hammarö Municipality, Karlstads Power Network Ltd, 

Karlstad Municipality and the Swedish Transport Agency – were invited to participate in Joint 
Flooding Cooperation Groups.87 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 15 

Effects of consultation 

Älvsbyn 
SE1A8932 

Falun 

Karlstad 

Kristianstad 

SE2A6504 

SE5A5704 

SE4A2980 

Stockholm 
SE3A0336 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Changes to selection of 
measures 

Adjustment to specific 
measures 

Addition of new 
information 

Changes to the 
methodology used 

Commitment to further 
research 

Commitment to action in 
the next FRMP 

Comments and results of 
the consultation "were 
considered in the 
formulation of the plan" 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

According  to  information  provided  in  the  FRMPs,  public  consultation  and  the  active 
involvement  of  stakeholders  led  to  changes  in  the  selection  of  measures,  adjustments  to 

specific measures and addition of new information for four of the five plans assessed (and for 

87  FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
three of these, there was commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle. For example, for the 
FRMP  for  Älvsbyn,  two  measures  proposed  were  moved  and  four  new  measures  were 

introduced  (on  flood  risk  exercises,  flood  management  through  cooperation  with  Non-
Governmental  Organisations,  an  inventory  of  environmentally  hazardous  activities  and 

contaminated  areas  within  the  APSFR,  and  an  investigation  of  infrastructure  measures  to 
reduce  flood  risk).  Information  was  not  found,  however,  on  changes  to  the  FRMP  for 
Kristianstad.88 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Two  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  –  those  for  Älvsbyn  and  Falun  –  indicated  that  a  Strategic 
Environmental Assessment was undertaken.  

No information was found on SEA for the other three FRMPs assessed89.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  While the information available on consultation and active involvement of stakeholders 
varies,  it  is  clear  that  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP  for  Karlstad  included  a  variety  of 

mechanisms for outreach and the strong involvement of a wide range of stakeholders.  

  Four  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  information  on  the  impacts  of  public 

consultation and active involvement of stakeholders on the final plans.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  indicate  if  a  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment procedure was undertaken. 

88   FRMP  Älvsbyn  (SE1A8932),  Section  10;  FRMP  Falun  (SE2A6504),  Section  10;  FRMP  Stockholm 
(SE3A0336), Section 9; FRMP Kristianstad (SE4A2980), Page 23; FRMP Karlstad (SE5A5704) Section 8.2. 
89   Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  other  FRMPs  have  gone  through  an  SEA  procedure.  For  Kristianstad, 

information on the SEA is available online:  
http://www.ebhportalen.se/Sv/Inventeringsrapporter/Inventering%20av%20L%C3%A5ngebro%20industriomr
%C3%A5de%20i%20Kristianstad%202007.pdf, and  
https://www.kristianstad.se/sv/naringsliv-och-arbete/tillstand-regler-och-tillsyn/fororenade-omraden/sanering-
av-kemtvatt-langebro/. 
For the Örebro and Lindesberg FRMPs, a joint SEA was carried out.  

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Sweden in the reporting 

sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section four on measures.   

Background & method 

This  document was  produced as part of the assessment of the FRMPs. The tables and charts 

below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by 
the  Member  State  assessor  to  complete  the  questions  on  the  Flood  measures.  The  data  are 

extracted from  the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each  FRMP, and 
are split into the following sections: 

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; 

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; 

  Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; 

  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; 

  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; 

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)90, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 

free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.   

In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: 

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different  answers are  given, Member States assessors were asked to  refer to 

the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

 

If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw 
data sorted. 

90   http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

44 

 
 
                                                 
  Measures  missing  information  may  be  assigned  categories  based  on  other  fields  (for 
example,  if  the  level  of  Responsibility  Authority  is  missing,  the  information  may  be 
obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). 

  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as  in  the  example  above  on  the  name  of  the  Responsible  Authority),  are 

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table91 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

91   Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 49 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 49 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Geographic location by measure aspect ................... 51 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Geographic location by UoM ................................... 52 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 53 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 54 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 57 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Category of priority by measure aspect .................. 58 
Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by UoM ...................... 60 
Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .... 60 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 47 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 47 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 48 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual)  per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 48 
Table A5 - Geographic location of implementation by measure aspect .................................. 50 
Table A6 - Geographic location of implementation by UoM .................................................. 51 
Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 53 
Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 53 
Table A9 - Level of responsibility authority by measure aspect ............................................. 56 
Table A10 - Level of responsibility authority by UoM ........................................................... 58 
Table A11 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 59 
Table A12 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................. 60 

46 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Number of aggregated measures  

Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Total number of measures  

Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

138 

138 

210 

210 

348 

348 

13-137 

58 

Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery 
and Review 
M52 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 
SE2 

SE3 
SE4 

SE5 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44 
5 
1 

2 
2 

2 

4 

1 
1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

<1 

<1 

1 
3 

3 

11 

2 

21 

8 

9 

42 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

<1 

<1 

1 

6 

13 

2 

3 

3 

<1 

2 
3 

4 

3 

12 

2 

2 

1 

3 

<1 

7 

6 

8 

21 

4 

7 

9 

16 

3 

1 

1 

2 

<1 

0 

0 

1 

5 

1 

7 

1 

47 

13 
3 

6 
38 

33 

45 

138 

23 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

M21  M24  M32  M33  M34  M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

M51 

M52 

M61 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

4 

2 

3 

5 

9 

23 

1 

2 

8 

24 

3 

42 

80 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

8 

1 

1 

1 

13 

4 

13 

<1 

<1 

<1 

2 

5 

3 

4 

2 

14 

2 

3 

2 

10 

2 

8 

25 

4 

5 

1 

4 

4 

3 

14 

31 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

<1 

<1 

7 

1 

7 

15 

3 

2 

2 

<1 

19 

10 

42 

41 

6 

92 

210 

35 

Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Prevention 
Total 

Protection 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Protection 
Total 

SE5 

SE4 

SE3 

SE2 

SE1TO 

SE1 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per 
UoM 

51 

3 

29 

11 

4 

5 

13 

9 

25 

2 

2 

8 

64 

12 

54 

13 

6 

13 

8 

5 

3 

11 

6 

2 

1 

5 

103 

59 

162 

16 

25 

17 

10 

27 

3 

4 

19 

6 

5 

5 

1 

5 

41 

7 

Preparedness 

Agg. 

31 

3 

7 

25 

6 

13 

85 

14 

Indiv. 

20 

18 

12 

2 

52 

9 

48 

Preparedness 
Total 

Recovery and review 

Agg. 

Indiv. 

Recovery 
and review 
Total 

Other 

Agg. 

Other 
Total 

Grand 
Total 

51 

21 

19 

27 

6 

13 

137 

23 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

<1 

<1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

137 

39 

79 

48 

13 

32 

2 

2 

348 

2 

2 

<1 

<1 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect 

Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Sweden did not provide any information regarding the costs of each measure in the reporting 
sheets.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

  Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). 

Location of measures 

SE gives information in Swedish. The answers have been categorised into the following: 

  Specific location: e.g. a river, a waste treatment plant, a hospital, a cemetery 

  Catchment 

  APSFR: Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk 

  Local: e.g. county, municipality 

  National 

  Other location 

Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Specific 
location 

Catchment 

APSFR 

Local 

National 

Other 
Location 

Grand 
Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

15 

7 

16 

2 

40 

4 

4 

8 

88 

21 

80 

3 

192 

46 

11 

33 

3 

93 

2 

3 

7 

2 

1 

5 

10 

162 

41 

137 

6 

2 

348 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM 

Specific 
location 

Catchment 

APSFR 

Local 

National 

Other 
Location 

Grand 
Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

2 

1 

15 

11 

1 

10 

40 

7 

13 

3 

12 

50 

38 

76 

192 

32 

12 

9 

19 

14 

39 

93 

19 

5 

5 

1 

32 

13 

48 

79 

39 

137 

348 

58 

2 

3 

5 

10 

2 

1 

7 

8 

1 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM 

SE5

10 

7 

76 

39 

5 

SE4

1 

38 

SE3

11 

1 

SE2

15 

SE1TO

1 

3 

SE1

2 

13 

50 

12 

14 

3 

2 

19 

9 

12 

5 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Specific location

Catchment

APSFR

Local

National

Other Location

Geographic coverage 

Sweden did not provide any information on the geographic coverage in the reporting sheets 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided 

in the textual part of the XML); 

  Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ 

is required); 

  Timetable  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or  ‘timetable’  is 

required). 

Objectives 

Sweden did not provide any information on the objectives of measures in the reporting sheets 

Category of priority 

Sweden  provided  information  for  the  priority  of  all  measures  except  for  28  measures  (all  in 

SE5). The following categories are used in the reporting sheet: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

52 

 
 
 
  Low. 

Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical  Very high  High  Moderate 

Low 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

4 

3 

12 

1 

20 

37 

8 

16 

67 

12 

57 

3 

61 

139 

38 

8 

41 

1 

88 

7 

3 

1 

1 

12 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

9 

10 

8 

1 

28 

162 

41 

137 

6 

2 

348 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM 

Critical  Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

6 

3 

11 

20 

3 

18 

7 

3 

20 

13 

61 

10 

8 

3 

19 

47 

28 

34 

139 

23 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 
32 

5 

1 

6 

12 

2 

28 

28 

5 

13 

48 

79 

39 

137 

348 

58 

21 

12 

10 

45 

88 

4 

53 

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

Timetable 

Information on the timetable is given for every measure as either a timespan, a single year, or a 

textual  description.  It  is  assumed  that  those  single  dates  are  completion  dates,  and  the 
remaining measures have been categorised appropriately.  Five measures  have information on 

the  timeline,  but  it  is  unclear  when  they  will  be  completed.  Six  measures  do  not  have  dates 
(“other timeline”) and include measures which are only implemented when needed (e.g. in  a 

flood).  

Table A9 - Timetable by measure aspect 

2
0
1
5

1 

2
0
1
6

13 

5 

22 

2
0
1
7

29 

7 

18 

O
n
g
o
i
n
g

27 

4 

32 

3 

2
0
1
8

16 

2 

23 

1 

1 

2
0
1
9

2
0
2
0

26 

12 

1 

4 

4 

6 

1 

1 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

2
0
2
6

3 

2
0
2
8

1 

2
0
2
1

33 

13 

28 

O
t
h
e
r

1 

1 

3 

1 

U
n
c
l
e
a
r

1 

3 

1 

T
o
t
a
l

G
r
a
n
d

162 

41 

137 

6 

2 

Grand Total 

66 

1 

40 

54 

43 

38 

17 

74 

3 

1 

6 

5 

348 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable by measure aspect 

Table A10 - Timetable by UoM 

O
n
g
o
i
n
g

16 

6 

2 

13 

29 

66 

2
0
1
5

2
0
1
6

1 

5 

13 

12 

6 

4 

1 

40 

2
0
1
7

1 

1 

9 

26 

7 

10 

54 

2
0
1
8

2
0
1
9

2
0
2
0

12 

13 

2 

16 

43 

5 

15 

1 

17 

38 

4 

6 

7 

17 

2
0
2
1

6 

5 

4 

7 

3 

49 

74 

2
0
2
6

2
0
2
8

1 

3 

3 

1 

13 

<1 

7 

9 

7 

6 

3 

12 

<1 

<1 

O
t
h
e
r

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

U
n
c
l
e
a
r

T
o
t
a
l

G
r
a
n
d

32 

13 

48 

79 

39 

137 

348 

58 

1 

4 

5 

1 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

Grand 
Total 

Average per 
UoM 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable by UoM 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported);   

  Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).  

Sweden reported no information for the level of Responsible Authority for any measure. 

However, the name of the Responsible Authority allows for the following categorisation: 

  Local: including municipalities and counties 

  Private: private company, for example Akzo Nobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals or 

utility companies  

  Local/Private: where local authorities and private companies with joint responsibility 

  Transport authority: including those at national and at local levels  

  Other:  including  Lantmännen  AB,  a  farming  cooperative,  and  the  Civil  Protection  and 

Emergency Agency 

Note  that  for  many  measures  there  are  more  than  one  Responsible  Authority,  however  there 

were no instances of double-counting of measures. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A11 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Joint 

Local/ 

Private 

2 

1 

Local 

139 

30 

122 

5 

2 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

Private 
company 

Transport 
authority 

Other 
authority 

Grand 
Total 

5 

6 

9 

13 

4 

2 

1 

20 

3 

4 

7 

162 

41 

137 

6 

2 

348 

Grand Total 

298 

3 

20 

Notes:  Measures  with  more  than  one  responsible  authority  have  only  been  categorised  once, 
usually based on the level  of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there  are two local 

level  authorities  and  one  private,  then  the  measure  would  fall  under  “local”).  Exception  is 
where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) 

Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Notes:  Measures  with  more  than  one  responsible  authority  have  only  been  categorised  once, 

usually based on the level  of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there  are two local 
level  authorities  and  one  private,  then  the  measure  would  fall  under  “local”).  Exception  is 

where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A12 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

Local 

Local/ 

Private 

Private 

Transport 
Agency 

Other 
authority 

Grand Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

26 

12 

36 

65 

39 

120 

298 

50 

4 

9 

4 

3 

20 

3 

2 

2 

8 

8 

20 

3 

1 

6 

7 

1 

32 

13 

48 

79 

39 

137 

348 

58 

1 

2 

3 

<1 

Notes:  Measures  with  more  than  one  responsible  authority  have  only  been  categorised  once, 
usually based on the level  of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there  are two  local 

level  authorities  and  one  private,  then  the  measure  would  fall  under  “local”).  Exception  is 
where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) 

Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table 12: Level of responsibility by UoM 

Notes:  Measures  with  more  than  one  responsible  authority  have  only  been  categorised  once, 

usually based on the level  of most of the Responsible Authorities (e.g. if there  are two local 
level  authorities  and  one  private,  then  the  measure  would  fall  under  “local”).  Exception  is 

where there are only two authorities (e.g. those categorised “local/private”) 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Progress  of  implementation  of  measures  (mandatory  field)  –  this  is  a  closed  question 

whose responses are analysed below; 

  Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open 
text  question  for  which  not  all  Member  States  reported  and  whose  answers  are  not 

analysed here. 

Sweden  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
progress of implementation was reported as92:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section.  

Table A13 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Not started 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

111 

28 

72 

4 

2 

51 

13 

65 

2 

162 

41 

137 

6 

2 

Grand Total 

348 
Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction 

131 

217 

92   Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Other

2 

Recovery & Review

Preparedness

72 

Protection

Prevention

4 

28 

111 

65 

2 

13 

51 

Not started

Progress ongoing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction 

Table A14 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

Not started 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

Grand Total 

19 

11 

30 

66 

23 

68 

217 

13 

2 

18 

13 

16 

69 

131 

32 

13 

48 

79 

39 

137 

348 

Average per UoM 

58 
Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction 

36 

22 

Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM 

SE5

SE4

SE3

SE2

SE1TO

SE1

68 

23 

30 

19 

66 

11 

69 

16 

18 

13 

13 

2 

Not started

Progress ongoing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Notes: Sweden did not report any measures as Completed or Ongoing Construction 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 

Document on the FD. 

60 

 
 
 
For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, 
a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  technical  and/or  administrative  procedures  necessary  for 

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  that  administrative  procedures  necessary  for  starting 
the  construction  or  building  works  have  started  but  are  not  finalised.  The  simple 
inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. 

  On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but 

are not finalized. 

  Completed  (COM)  means  the  works  have  been  finalised  and  the  facilities  are 
operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). 

For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  advisory  services  are  not  yet  operational  and  have  not 

provided any advisory session yet. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  the  advisory  services  are  operational  and  are  being 
used. This  is  expected to be the situation for all multi- annual  long/mid-term  advisory 
services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been 
finalised, i.e. is  no longer operational.  This  is  expected only for  advisory services that 
are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the 
whole RBMP. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

  Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract 

has not been signed or there has not been any progress. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted 

or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has 

been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, 
instructions, etc.): 
  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  administrative  file  has  not  been  opened  and  there  has  not 

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  an  administrative  file  has  been  opened  and  at  least  a 
first  administrative  action  has  been  taken  (e.g.  requirement  to  an  operator  to  provide 
information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 
consultation  of  draft  regulations,  etc.).  If  the  measure  involves  more  than  one  file,  the 
opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or 
permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the  measure  involves 
more than one administrative act,  “completed” is  achieved only  when  all of them have 
been concluded. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); 

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Sweden has provided information on other legislation for 20 measures: 

  Enligt Plan- och bygglagen (Planning and Building Act); 

  Förordning (2006:942) om krisberedskap och höjd beredskap (Emergency preparedness 

rules); 

  Lag (2003:778) om skydd mot olyckor (Law on protection against accidents); 

  Lagen  (2006:544)  om  kommuners  och  landstings  åtgärder  inför  och  vid  extraordinära 
händelser i fredstid och höjd beredskap (Act on the actions of municipalities and county 
councils extraordinary events); 

  Plan- och bygglagen (Planning and Building Act); 

  Sevesoanläggning (Seveso construction); 

  Sevesoverksamhet (Seveso operations); 

  Vattenverksamhet  enligt  11  kap  Miljöbalken  (Water  activities  under  Chapt.  11  of  the 

Environment Code). 

Seven measures appear to refer to the Seveso Directive. 

Sweden did not report any information in the field “other”. 

62 

 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures93 

M11 

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

No Action 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

M23  Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of 

a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

M24 

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies 
etc...) 

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of 
banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. 

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such 
as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact 
on the hydrological regime. 

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such 
as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment 
dynamics management, dykes, etc. 

M34  Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 
water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 
drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

M35 

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may 
include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41  Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 
enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public 
awareness or preparedness for flood events 

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood 
events to reduce adverse consequences 

93 Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of 
preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, 
infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster 
financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, 
Temporary or permanent relocation , Other 

M52  Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

M53  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 

NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 

project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 
measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 
use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 

measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRM 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

65