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

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 57 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Sweden     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - 
 
 
Table of Contents 
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 5 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 6 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 7 

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ......................................................... 10 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 25 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 25 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 28 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 29 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 30 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 30 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 45 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 45 

Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 48 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second RBMPs and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs . 
 ...................................................................................................................................... 48 

3.2  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 69 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 73 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 73 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 90 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 91 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 93 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 93 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 99 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 99 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................. 101 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 101 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 107 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 108 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 110 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 110 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 113 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 114 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 116 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 116 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 124 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 125 

Topic 9

  Programme of Measures ......................................................................................... 127 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 127 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 135 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 136 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 139 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 139 

10.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 140 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 141 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 141 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 142 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 143 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 145 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 145 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 147 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 147 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 149 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 149 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 150 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 151 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 153 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 153 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 154 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 156 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 156 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 159 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 159 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 162 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 162 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 162 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 162 

4 

 
 
Acronyms 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 
guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 
what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 
included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 
was not necessary. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 

Member  State  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 

reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European  Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  RBMP  prepared  earlier.  The 

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 

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

Sweden has a population of 9.75 million (Eurostat 2015)1. The total area of Sweden is 453 140 
km2 (2).  

The Bothnian Bay River Basin District (RBD) is shared with Finland and Norway mainly by 
the River Torne,  which  forms  part of the border between  Finland and Sweden.  A very small 

part of this catchment is in Norway. 

1http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&foot

notes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1 

2   Map  and  area  from  Commission  second  implementation  report  on  WFD  monitoring  of  2009,  Annex 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm 

7 

SENO1102Norwegian SeaGulfofBothniaBalticSeaSkagerrakKattegatNorthSeaSEFIVHA6RURUNOSE5NOSE5RUBYNO1103SE2SE1SE5SE4SE3SE1TOSE4SENO5101SENO1103SENO1104FIVHA3FIVHA4FIVHA1FIVHA5LT1100FIVHA2NO5101DK1EE2EE1NO5102LVDUBANO1102FIVHA7NO5103NO1104NO5106NO1101LVVUBANO1105DK2LVGUBANO5105LT3400NO5104LVLUBALT2300NOSE1EE3LT4500DK3FIWDANOSE2NOSE20100200km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The  border  between  Sweden  and  Norway  is  mostly  formed  by  a  mountain  range.  About  30 

transboundary  catchments are shared between the two countries, most of them  having  only  a 
small part in the upstream country. These small parts of catchments have been given specific 

codes in addition to the main RBDs in Sweden (SE1, SE2 and SE5). In Skagerrak and Kattegat 
there  is  one  major  international  river  shared  with  Norway,  the  Göta  river  catchment,  which 

includes  the  river  Klarälven  and  Lake  Vänern,  the  largest  lake  in  the  European  Union 
(5 655 km²).  

The information on the areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided  in 
Table A. Sweden’s share of the international RBDs is shown in Table B. 

Table A 

Overview of Sweden’s RBDs3  

RBD 

Name 

Size4 (km2) 
(Area including 
coastal waters shown 
in brackets) 

Countries 
sharing 
RBD 

SE1** 

Bothnian Bay (Bottenviken) 

120900 (128100) 

FI, NO 

SE1TO 

SE2** 

SE3** 

SE4** 

SE5** 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

Bothnian Bay (International district Torne 
river) (managed as part of SE1) 

25420 (25500) 

FI, NO 

Bothnian Sea (Bottenhavet) 

140200 (145200) 

NO 

North Baltic Sea (Norra Östersjön) 

South Baltic Sea (Södra Östersjön) 

36980 (44200) 

54920 (64980) 

- 

- 

Skagerrak and Kattegat (Västerhavet) 

68580 (71690) 

NO 

Bothnian Sea (International RBD 
Trondelagsfylkene) (managed as part of 
SE2) 

Bothnian Bay (International RBD Nordland) 
(managed as part of SE1) 

Bothnian Bay (International RBD Troms) 
(managed as part of SE1) 

Skagerrak and Kattegat (International RBD 
Glomma) (managed as part of SE2 and SE5) 

450 

1319 

192 

992 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE Note: ** Main RBDs shown. All the small international 
parts of these RBDs are reported in separate envelopes (http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/eu/wfd2016/ ), but the 
RBMPs are the same as those for the main RBDs, and are adopted and reported at the same dates. 

3 Sweden subsequently informed the Commission that these 10 RBDs, are only for reporting purposes. The five 
river basins that are shared with Norway and Finland have been defined as five separate RBDs in the  WISE 
reporting schemes; however, this does not mean that those river basins are individual RBDs that are managed 
separately. The  management  of those  basins  is instead included in  the  RBMPs  for the  main RBDs that they 
belong to. 

4   Source: http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/Sv/om-vattenmyndigheterna/fakta-om-

distrikten/Pages/default.aspx?keyword=Vattendistrikt+areal 

8 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table B 

Transboundary RBDs by category and % share in Sweden 

Name international 
river basin 

Sweden national 
RBDs 

Countries sharing 
RBD 

Ångermanälven 

Dalälven 

SE2 

SE2 

Fagerbakkvassdraget 

Nordland/SE1 

Glomma 

Glomma/SE5/SE2 

Haldenvassdraget/Enningsdal  SE1 

Hellemovassdraget 

Nordland/SE1 

Indalsälven 

Klarälven/Trysil - Göta 
alv/Vänern Göta/ (including 
the Sub-basins 
Norsälven/Byälven/ 
Upperudälven) 

SE2 

SE5 

Kobbelva 

Luleälven 

Nordland/SE1 

SE1 

Malselvvassdraget/Malangen  Troms/SE1 

Nidelva 

Piteälven 

Ranavassdraget 

Rossaga 

Saltelva 

Signaldalselva 

Skjomavassdraget 

Troendelag/SE2 

SE1 

Nordland/SE1 

Nordland/SE1 

Nordland/SE1 

Troms/SE1 

Nordland/SE1 

Stjordalsvassdraget 

Troendelag/SE2 

Torneälven/Tornionjoki 

Umeälven 

Vefsna 

Verdalsvassdraget 

SE1 

SE1 

Nordland/SE1 

Troendelag/SE2 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

FI/NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Co-ordination 
Category 

2 

km2 
30349 

27843 

20 

430 

578 

16 

24763 

 % 

95.0 

95.0 

2.0 

1.0 

23.0 

1.0 

92.0 

42982 

84.0 

10 

24506 

209 

293 

11186 

270 

193 

119 

46 

160 

46 

25393 

26561 

548 

102 

1.0 

97.0 

3.0 

8.0 

99.0 

6.0 

7.0 

6.0 

3.0 

10.0 

2.0 

63.1 

99.0 

12.0 

6.0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in 
place.  
Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. 
Category 3: International agreement in place. 
Category 4: No co-operation formalised. 

9 

 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

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

10 

 
 
 
Key  strengths,  improvements  and weaknesses  of the  second  River 
Basin Management Plan(s) 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Sweden are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Sweden has coordinated the preparation of RBMPs with Finland and Norway, including 

via the preparation of “roof reports” on common challenges and actions, and these were 
provided for consultation in all countries involved. 

 

 

A broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the preparation and drafting of 
Sweden’s RBMPs via advisory groups. 

Sweden did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the 
Water Framework Directive. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Some small water bodies situated in Protected Areas have been delineated as separate 

water  bodies,  so  their  objectives  will  be  in  line  with  those  of  other  water  bodies  in 
Protected Areas.  

 

In  each  of  the  RBDs  there  are  several  river,  lake  and  coastal  water  bodies  that  are 
reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types. The RBMPs reported that the 

Swedish classification system has been successfully intercalibrated for all the biological 
quality  elements  for  national  types  that  have  been  linked  to  common  intercalibration 

types.  

 

Type specific reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality 

elements,  physicochemical  quality  elements  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements 
for  all  coastal  water  bodies,  but  not  for  rivers  or  lakes.  This  may  lead  to  some 

weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to these quality elements. 

 

Further  characterisation  work  has  been  undertaken  since  the  first  RBMP  with  the 

inclusion  of  the  assessment  of  linkages  with  surface  water  bodies  and  terrestrial 
ecosystems. 

11 

 
 

For  surface  water  bodies,  significance  of  pressures  is  reported  as  being  linked  to  the 

potential failure of objectives and are defined in terms of thresholds. The significance of 
pressures is reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives for groundwaters. 

Sweden  has  made  major  attempts  to  improve  the  assessment  of  significance  in  their 
analyses of pressures since the first RBMPs, developing a set of new methods for each 

the  major  pressure/impact  categories:  nutrient  enrichment,  acidification, 
of 
contamination by hazardous substances and morphological pressures. Models are used 

to estimate the source apportionment and link threshold values to the boundary for the 
sensitive  biological  quality  elements;  however,  the  significance  of  pressures  has  not 

been  defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  for  pressures  on  groundwater  and  for  defining 
abstraction, artificial recharge, and other pressures; only expert judgement was used.  

 

 All  RBDs  reported  inventories  of  emissions,  discharges,  and  losses,  containing  each 
only  between  six  to  eight  Priority  Substances.  For  some  substances  in  the  inventories 

(including some substances deemed relevant at RBD level), Tier 1 of the methodology 
was implemented; for the others a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and 

Tier 2 (riverine load) was used, while the Guidance Document recommends applying at 
least  Tier  1  +  2  for  all  substances  relevant  at  RBD  level.  The  data  quality  was  not 

reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

The  proportion  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  increased  for  all 

relevant  water  categories  in  the  second  RBMPs.  The  same  happened  with  operational 
monitoring in coastal and river water bodies, while there was a small decrease for lake 

water bodies. 

 

There  has  been  an  overall  increase  in  the  numbers  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  in 

coastal waters (+27 %), lakes (+19 %) and rivers (+26 %) since the first RBMPs. 

 

The  number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  in  rivers  increased  by  3  %  since  the  first 
RBMPs, but there was a decrease in coastal waters (-9 %) and lakes (-26 %). 

  Monitoring  of  biological  quality  elements  still  shows  several  gaps,  namely  for 
angiosperms  and  macroalgae  in  coastal  waters,  phytobenthos,  benthic  invertebrates, 

macrophytes and fish in lakes. These were monitored only in some RBDs or not at all. 

12 

 
  Morphological conditions were not monitored in any water category or RBD, and there 

are also gaps concerning tidal regime and hydrological regime. 

 

Similarly, there are also significant gaps in the monitoring of general physicochemical 

quality elements. 

 

None  of  the  coastal  waters,  lakes,  and  river  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring  was  monitored  for  all  required  biological  or  hydromorphological  or 

physicochemical quality elements. 

 

Of  the  10  biological  quality  elements  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  in  surface 

waters,  only  phytoplankton  was  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended 
frequency  at  all  sites  in  coastal  waters.  For  operational  monitoring,  none  of  the  10 

biological  quality elements  used were sampled at  least  at  the minimum  recommended 
frequency at all sampling sites. 

  When  it  comes  to  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  34  were  reported  to  be  monitored, 
four  in  biota  (unspecified),  seven  in  fish,  six  in  biota  other  than  fish,  nine  in  settled 

sediment,  and  33  in  water.  Biota,  settled  sediment,  and  water  were  monitored  in  all 
three  relevant  water  categories.  None  of  the  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were 

sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. 

 

Assessment methods for biological quality element methods were developed since the 

first  RBMPs  for  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters,  but  methods  for  the  assessment  of 
phytobenthos in lakes and macroalgae in coastal waters are still missing. A method for 

macrophytes in rivers was recently developed, but was not reported. 

 

Assessment  methods  for  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  reported  for  each 

water category, but are not linked to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

 

 

For physicochemical quality elements, only the assessment methods for nutrients in all 
water categories are reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Environmental Quality Standards have been set for 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants 
in  water  and  in  all  water  categories.  For  one  substance  (polychlorinated  biphenyl) 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  in  biota  and  fish  were  also  derived.  All  Standards 
have  been  derived  in  accordance  with  Technical  Guidance  n.  27.  The  analytical 

methods are in line with Articles 4(1) or 4(2) of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control 
Directive (2009/90/EC), except those for the two estradiols. 

13 

 
 

Expert  judgment  is  the  most  often  used  means  of  classification  of  ecological 

status/potential of the quality elements in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters in Sweden. 

 

The use of hydromorphological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in 

the  overall  classification  of  ecological  status  ware  largely  based  on  expert  judgment, 
even when this was not the case in the classification of the individual parameters. 

 

There are still only a small minority of water bodies classified for most of the biological 

quality elements in all water categories. 

 

In  general,  more  lakes  and  river  water  bodies  were  classified  using  physicochemical 

quality elements than using biological quality elements. 

 

The  number  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological  status/potential  was  reduced 

from 128 in the first RBMPs to only one in the second. The proportion of coastal waters 
in good or better status increased, while the proportion of rivers and lakes reported to be 

in good or better ecological status/potential decreased significantly. These changes are 
mostly reported as being due to better data, knowledge and more complete assessment 

methods, and not to real deterioration of status. 

 

Confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential assessment has improved, 

especially  for  rivers  and  lakes,  due  to  more  monitoring  and  better  assessment  of 

biological quality elements. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 

 

All  water  categories  including  territorial  waters  are  monitored  for  Priority  Substances 

for the assessment of chemical status.  

 

In  all  water  categories,  the  proportion  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  chemical  status  is 

low  in  particular  compared  to  the  proportion  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  ecological 
status (5 % and 3 % of surface water bodies are included in surveillance and operational 

monitoring  respectively  for  chemical  status);  however,  this  could  be  explained  by  the 
fact that the reported pressures with respect to chemical status are limited to ‘diffuse – 

atmospheric  deposition’  which  is  affecting  almost  all  surface  water  bodies.  Chemical 
status  has  been  assigned  through  a  combination  of  monitoring  and  expert  judgement 

with medium to low confidence for the majority of water bodies.   

14 

 
 
 

Sweden monitors all (6 to 12) of the Priority Substances included in the inventories in 

five  RBDs  with  the  exception  of  one  substance  (DEHP)  in  the  Bothnian  Bay  RBD. 
There  are  a  large  number  of  water  bodies  with  no,  or  limited  monitoring  of  Priority 

Substances.  Where  monitoring  occurs,  the  monitoring  frequencies  are  consistent  with 
the recommended minimum guideline  

  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in  biota  and/or 
sediment for status assessment with frequencies that meet the recommended minimum 

guideline in some, but not all monitoring sites  

 

According  to  WISE,  arrangements  are  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis,  but 

monitoring of sediment and biota reported to WISE is said to be for status assessment 

only.  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  the  required  substances  are  monitored  for 
trend analysis; however, this might not have been reported properly in the RBMPs.  

 

Sweden reports that all surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status. 
All  41 Priority Substances are used in  the assessment of chemical  status  across all 10 

RBDs.;  however,  not  all  of  these  substances  are  monitored  in  each  of  the  RBDs.  The 
majority  of  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  via  expert  judgement,  all  of  which 

again  were  found  to  fail  to  achieve  good  status  with  grouping  and  monitoring 
underpinning classification for 0.3 and 4.3 % of surface water bodies respectively. The 

assessment  of  chemical  status  is  driven  by  the  failure  of  the  environmental  quality 
standard  for  mercury  in  biota  and  for  brominated  diphenylethers  where  these  are 

monitored,  and  the  extrapolation  of  these  results  through  expert  judgement  to 
unmonitored water bodies.  

 

Sweden has used the environmental  quality standards from  the revised Environmental 
Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)  (2013/39/EU)  as  the  basis  for  the 

assessment of chemical status for 33 Priority Substances in the second RBMP. For the 
remaining eight Priority Substances, Sweden reported that alternative and/or additional 

standards have been applied. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

Only 2 % of the groundwater bodies are covered by monitoring for quantitative status. 

15 

 
  While  all  groundwater  bodies  have  a  clear  status,  the  confidence  in  the  status 

assessment is unknown for 87 % of the groundwater bodies. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

 

 

Surveillance and operational monitoring have improved significantly. 

Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  not  reporting  all  WFD  core  parameters  that  are 
subject to monitoring is likely to be a reporting error.  

 

Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential 

 

Two  new  guidelines  for  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  have  been 

developed since the first RBMPs (one  general  guideline and one  guideline specific to 
hydropower).  The  methodology  for  designation  addresses  the  criteria  for  the 

identification of substantial changes in character, the assessment of significant adverse 
effects  on  the  use  and  explanations  of  how  WFD  Article  4(3)(b)  has  been  applied 

(better environmental option). The reason for the designation of most heavily modified 
water  bodies  in  Sweden  is  still  hydropower  production  (in  particular  large-scale 

hydropower over 10 megawatts). The lack of designations due to other uses is related to 
the lack of national guidance on how water bodies affected by other water uses should 

be assessed from a heavily modified water bodies-perspective. More detailed guidance 
on designation related to other activities (other than hydropower) is still pending. 

  Work  to  define  good  ecological  potential  is  still  ongoing.  Good  ecological  potential 
definition in terms of biology is foreseen in theory in the relevant guidelines, but it has 

not been carried out  yet in practice. Mitigation measures for good ecological potential 
are not yet defined for specific heavily modified water bodies, but the RBMPs indicate 

future work to define these still in 2018. The water authorities (in all districts) started a 
project in 2016 in order to develop river basin-based plans of measures which will be 
used to identify the measures that are reasonable for achieving good ecological potential 
for  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  related  to  hydropower  by  the  end  of 

2018. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and 

quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies have been reported in all RBDs. 

16 

 
 

Drivers, pressures and impacts leading to exemptions are reported and exemptions have 

been applied at water body level. 

 

Sweden  has  developed  new  national  guidance  on  exemptions  in  preparation  of  the 

second  RBMPs.  The  justifications  for  Article  4(4)  and  4(5)  exemptions  have  been 
revised in the second cycle following implementation of the national guidance. The use 

of  this  justification  of  disproportionate  costs  is  hampered  by  the  lack  of  cost 
information in some cases. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

The most important progress made seems to be the definition of a significant number of 

national measures in relation to specific pressures (although not all pressures appear to 
have been addressed), the planning of more measures and/or the extension of measures 

in  the  second  and  third  cycles,  for  example  to  control  nutrients  and  in  particular 
phosphorus  loads.  The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  cycle  of  Programme  of 

Measures  (PoM)  in  Sweden  was  reported  as  “some  measures  completed”  for  all  five 
main RBDs. 

 

 

A  clear  financial  commitment 
implementation of PoM in all five RBDs. 

is  reported  as  having  been  secured  for 

the 

New  legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  Programmes  of  Measures  in  the  first 
RBMP was reported necessary and already adopted in all five RBDs. 

  Many of the reported significant pressures are not covered by operational KTMs. 

 

National  basic  measures  (52)  and  national  supplementary  measures  (45)  have  been 

mapped against 14 of the 25 pre-defined KTMs. All measures apply in all RBDs. Some 

basic measures have been mapped against KTMs for which their operational measures 
have not been reported. 

 

No  measure  was  reported  as  linked  to  individual  Priority  Substance  or  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutant, although measures have been reported to  tackle chemical  pollution 
both in surface waters and in groundwaters5. 

5  Sweden  clarified  that  although  the  information  is  not  reported  in  WISE,  it  is  obvious  from  the  RBMPs, 
Programmes  of  Measures  and  the  underlying  documents  for  all  RBDs  that  a  large  number  of  measures  are 
directed at addressing Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants.   

17 

 
 
 
                                                      
 

Indicators have been developed for a number of significant pressures. Where they have 

been developed, they are well defined and indicate a high level of ambition.  

 

 

 

Indicators have not been developed for all the significant pressures identified. 

Full integration of the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans is reported and WFD 

Article  9(4)  has  been  applied  (as  reported  in  WISE,  although  Sweden  subsequently 
clarified that there was not full integration, but close co-operation).  

Although full integration is reported (see  above), other aspects  which would therefore 
be expected (e.g. joint consultation, win-win measures) are reported as not having taken 

place/been included in the second RBMPs. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as relevant for Sweden, where minor 
numbers of groundwater bodies are failing good quantitative status and minor numbers 
of surface water bodies with significant abstraction pressures. 

 

The Water Exploitation Index is not  calculated; though water quantity data have been 

reported to support the European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water 
Quantity. 

 

Article  11(3)(e)  controls  over  agricultural  water  abstraction  and  impoundment  (e.g. 
permits and water pricing policies) have not been improved since the first cycle. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. 

A  gap  assessment  was  carried  out  for  the  reductions  needed  in  loads  of  nitrogen  and 

phosphorus and for the reduction in the number of applications of pesticides to achieve 

objectives. 

 

Safeguard  zones  have  been  established  for  abstractions.  Significant  changes  are 

announced in the RBMPs but are not detailed further. 

 

Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well as 

measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff. 

18 

 
 
 
 

Limited  information  was  available  in  the  RBMPs  on  whether  mandatory  or  voluntary 

measures are being used. 

 

Progress  is  anticipated  as  the  area  to  be  covered  by  the  measures  tackling  nutrient 

pollution is expected to increase significantly between 2015 and 2021. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

As noted in relation to Topic 9, no substance-specific measures was reported to WISE 

although measures were reported to tackle chemical pollution.  

 

The effectiveness of measures to combat phosphorus pollution in coastal catchments is 
described in the RBMPs, but cannot be judged because of a lack of information on the 

reduction need, and in other catchments it is not clear how the calculated need will be 
met. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

In the first RBMPs, no concrete measures were identified to achieve improvements in 
hydromorphology. The proposed measures were mainly aiming at an improved basis for 

decisions upon specific measures to be taken in the next planning cycle. In the second 
RBMPs,  operational  KTMs  to  tackle  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are 

reported  in  the  five  main  RBDs  but  only  in  relation  to  dams/barriers/locks.  No 
operational  KTM  are  reported  for  significant  physical  alterations,  hydrological 

alterations 
hydromorphological pressures are assigned to specific sectors only to some extent. 

hydromorphological 

alterations. 

addition, 

and 

In 

significant 

 

From the information available, there will be considerable progress in  closing the gap 
by  2021  in  terms  of  continuity  barriers.  Nevertheless,  after  2021,  there  will  still  be  a 

considerable number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to 
achieve the objectives, especially in the Bothnian Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak 

and Kattegat (Glomma) RBDs. 

 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  partially,  i.e.  for  some  relevant  water  bodies,  but 

the work is still on-going. The ecological flows that have been derived so far have been 

implemented  only  in  some  relevant  water  bodies.  The  issue  of  ecological  flows  is 
generally  not  described  in  detail.  The  measures  linked  to  ecological  flows  are  all 

19 

 
administrative (guiding  of other  authorities, planning, identification of needs etc.)  and 

no information is given on specific and physical efforts planned. 

  Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods 
Directive, drought  management  and  use of Natural  Water Retention  Measures  are not 
reported  as  included  in  the  PoM.  Also,  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural 

measures, such as  flood defenses, storage dams,  and tidal  barriers, are reported not  to 
have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives.  

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

 

 

It is not explained how pricing policies provide ‘adequate incentives’. 

No detailed information on the application of the Polluter Pays Principle was reported. 

Cost  recovery rates  are  provided only for the  municipal  water and wastewater system 

(combined). Environmental and resource costs have not been included 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

In terms of setting specific objectives for Protected Areas designated under the Habitats 
and  Birds  Directives  associated  with  surface  waters,  Sweden  reports  that  some  specific 

objectives have been set, but work is still on-going to determine needs. No information is 
provided in WISE on whether these specific objectives have been met. 

  Where  Protected  Areas  have  been  designated  in  relation  to  shellfish  production  (in  the 
SE5  RBD),  additional  specific  objectives  have  also  been  defined,  comprising 
microbiological  standards  that  are  different  to  those  in  the  repealed  Shellfish  Directive 
2006/113/EC;  however,  no  information  is  provided  in  WISE  on  whether  these  specific 

objectives have been met. 

 

The  lack  of  some  Protected  Area  monitoring  programmes  and  the  low  number  of 

monitoring sites in some cases indicate insufficient monitoring of water bodies associated 

with Protected Areas. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs. 

20 

 
 
 

It  is  stated  that  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  document  on  how  to 

adapt to climate change was not used for the preparation of the RBMPs.  

 

KTM  24  –  "Adaptation  to  climate  change"  has  not  been  made  operational  to  address 

significant pressures in any of the RBDs. 

 

Droughts  have  not  been  reported  to  be  relevant  for  the  country,  except  in  the  South 

Baltic  Sea  RBDs  which  are  facing  frequent  local  droughts  and  occasional  large-scale 

water  shortage,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  Sweden.  No  drought 
management plans have been reported for Sweden. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Sweden needs to ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out 

in  accordance  with  the  WFD  timetable  to  ensure  the  timely  adoption  of  the  third 

RBMPs. 

 

Clear information should be included in national RBMPs on international coordination 

efforts  in  order  to  increase  transparency.  Sweden  should  continue  to  focus  on 
international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of 

the  WFD  such  as  ensuring  a  harmonized  approach  for  status  assessment  and  a 
coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Further  work  is  needed  to  define  type-specific  reference  conditions  for  relevant 
biological,  physicochemical  and  hydromorphological  Quality  Elements  in  rivers  and 

lakes. 

 

Sweden  should  further  strengthen  the  monitoring  of  surface  waters  by  covering  all 

relevant quality elements in all water categories. 

 

 

An increased level of monitoring should lead to a lower dependence on expert judgment 
for the classification of ecological status/potential. 

Sweden should ensure that Environmental Quality Standards are available and adequate 
for all relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

 

Sweden  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods  for  all  biological 

quality  elements  in  all  categories  of  water  bodies.  Assessment  methods  for 
hydromorphological and for physicochemical quality elements should be linked to the 
sensitive biological quality elements. 

 

 

Sweden  should  improve  the  monitoring  for  status  assessment  to  reach  sufficient 
confidence and spatial coverage for all the Priority Substances as well as the monitoring 
frequencies in biota/sediment in all monitoring sites according to the Directive. 

Sweden should report information on trend monitoring in surface waters, which should 
cover all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC in order to provide 

sufficient data for long-term trend analysis.  

22 

 
 

The  knowledge  base  on  groundwater  should  significantly  be  improved  in  Sweden. 

Enhanced  and  robust  groundwater  monitoring  should  be  established  based  on  WFD 
requirements. WFD based methodologies should be used to  assess  groundwater status 

correctly. 

 

Sweden should continue the efforts and complete the methodologies for the designation 

of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water uses, including clear criteria for 
the assessment of significant adverse effects of mitigation measures on use or the wider 

environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better  environmental  options.  Ecological 
potential  still  needs  to  be  defined  for  each  individual  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water body based on a comprehensive set of mitigation measures. 

 

Progress  in  the  justification  of  exemptions  by  further  substantiating  the  related 

assessments with additional data and information and by reducing the remaining degree 

of  uncertainties  should  be  pursued.  The  number  of  applied  exemptions  is  still 
significant.  Sweden  should  take  all  necessary  measures  to  bring  down  the  number  of 

exemptions  as  much  as  possible  for  the  next  cycle  in  order  to  ensure  a  timely 
achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Sweden should make sure that significant pressures are covered by operational KTMs. 

  Measures  to  address  all  relevant  Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 
and groundwater pollutants should be identified and linked to the individual substances. 

 

 

Indicators for all identified significant pressures should be developed. 

In the third RBMPs, it should be stated clearly for all RBDs, to what extent, in terms of 

area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be 
complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to 

basic  measures)  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD  objectives.  Sources  of  funding 
should  be  identified  (e.g.  CAP  Pillar  1,  RDP),  as  appropriate,  to  facilitate  successful 

implementation of these measures in all RBDs.  

 

Sweden  needs  to  continue  its  efforts  to  quantify  the  phosphorus  reduction  need  in 

coastal  catchments  and  to  find  additional  measures  against  phosphorus  pollution  in 
general. 

23 

 
 

Sweden  should  ensure  the  implementation  and  appropriate  reporting  of  measures  to 

tackle  all  hydromorphological  pressures,  including  restoration  of  the  hydrological  and 
hydromorphological conditions of water bodies. 

 

The  methodology  for  establishing  ecological  flows  need  to  be  finalised,  and  its  full 
implementation should be ensured in all RBDs. 

 

Sweden  should  continue  to  consider  river  restoration  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green 

infrastructure  and/or  natural  water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of 
environmental  (improvements  in  water  quality,  increase  water  infiltration,  and  thus 

aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 
benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

 

Sweden should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact 
on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  It  should  present  in  a 

transparent  manner  how  financial,  environmental  and  resource  costs  have  been 
calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should 

also present transparently the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview 
of estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

Sweden  should  continue  to  work  on  setting  specific  additional  objectives  for  all 
Protected  Areas  under  relevant  Directives  and  ensure  their  link  to  the  WFD 

implementation. 

 

Based  on  the  prevalence  of  local  drought  in  the  Bothnian  Sea  and  North  Baltic  Sea 

RBDs,  as  one  of  the  effects  of  climate  change,  Sweden  should  consider  preparing 
drought management plans where appropriate. 

24 

 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – River Basin Districts 

Sweden  has  designated  10  RBDs.  Of  the  10  RBDs,  four  are  small  catchments  shared  with 
Norway  and  one  is  a  larger  catchment  shared  with  Finland.  These  five  RBDs  are  managed 

under three larger RBDs, Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, and Skagerrak and Kattegat. 

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Sweden reports Competent Authorities at national and sub-national level.  

Sweden has five Water Authorities for: the Bothnian Sea Water District, Bothnian Bay Water 

District, North Baltic Water District, South Baltic Water District, and Skagerrak and Kattegat 
Water District. The main roles for the five Water Authorities are: monitoring of groundwater 
and  surface  water6,  economic  analysis,  preparation  of  RBMPs  and  PoM,  public  participation 
and  co-ordination  of  implementation.  These  Authorities  have  supporting  roles  for  the 

assessment  of  status  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  pressure  and  impact  analysis,  and 
reporting to the Commission.  

The  21  County  Administrative  Boards  main  roles  include  the  assessment  of  status  of 
groundwater and surface water, the enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, 

and public participation issuing regulations for the respective water districts. Sweden reported 
to WISE that they have a supporting role7 for the monitoring of groundwater and surface water 
and Sweden informed that the Boards also manage several monitoring programmes.  

Three national bodies have several roles: 

  The  Swedish  Geological  Survey’s  main  role  focuses  on  regulating/issuing  regulations 
implementation  of  measures  and  coordination  of  measures;  it  has  a  support  role  for 

monitoring of groundwater and reporting to the Commission and Sweden has informed 
that it also has a role in the preparation of national guidance. 

6 Sweden subsequently noted that, while the five Water Authorities hold the role for monitoring, actual ownership 
of monitoring is distributed among many actors, including for example SWAM (Swedish Agency for Marine 
and Water Management). 

7 Sweden informed that the Boards also manage several monitoring programmes. 

25 

 
                                                      
  The  Swedish  Agency  for  Marine  and  Water  Management’s  main  role  focuses  on  the 
regulating/issuing regulations, coordinate the five water authorities, implementation of 
measures,  coordination  of  measures,  and  reporting  to  the  Commission;  it  has  a 

secondary role for monitoring of surface water. Sweden also informed that the agency 
also has a role in the preparation of national guidance.  

  The  Swedish  Environmental  Protection  Agency’s  main  roles  are  to  put  focus  on  the 
enforcement  of  regulations  and  the  implementation  of  measures.  The  Agency  has  the 

primary responsibility for environmental monitoring and funding of monitoring.  

In addition to these three bodies, other national organisations have a primary responsibility for 

the implementation of measures:  

  Swedish Board of Agriculture;  

  Swedish Forest Agency;  

  Swedish Energy Agency;  

  Swedish Chemical Agency;  

  Medical Products Agency.  

  Swedish Coast Guard;  

  Mining Inspectorate, under the Swedish Geological Survey;    

  Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency;  

  National Board of Housing, Building and Planning;  

  Surgeon General (Defence Inspector for Health and the Environment);  

In addition, County Administration Boards and municipalities (290 in total) also have a main 

role in the implementation of measures.  

1.1.3  River  Basin  Management  plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment 

Sweden did not report sub-plans for its RBMPs to WISE, but has informed that sub plans for 

some  RBDs  have  been  reported  in  appendices  to  the  RBMPs.  Sweden  informed  that  the 
RBMPs  identify  sub-plans.  For  example,  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBMP  includes  a 

26 

 
summary of sub-plans, and for the North Baltic RBMP, 50 detailed sub-basin plans have been 

produced and made available to the public.  

All of Sweden's RBMPs underwent Strategic Environmental Assessments. 

1.1.4  Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders 

In  all  of  Sweden's  RBDs,  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  about  the  public 

consultation by the following means: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, media 
(papers,  TV  and  radio),  meetings,  and  printed  material.  Documents  for  consultation  were 

available  by:  direct  mailing  (both  email  and  post),  download,  and  paper  copies  available  in 
municipal buildings and distributed at exhibitions. Documents were available for the requisite 

six months. 

The following stakeholder groups in each RBD were actively involved in the development of 

Sweden's  RBMPs:  national  authorities,  agriculture/farmers,  energy/hydropower,  fisheries, 
aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and 

sanitation. The mechanisms for active involvement were: the establishment of advisory groups 
and involvement in drafting.  

In  all  of  Sweden's  RBDs,  the  impact  of  the  public  consultation  and  active  involvement  was: 

addition  of  new  information,  adjustment  to  specific  measures,  changes  to  the  selection  of 
measures and commitment to action in the next RBMP.  

1.1.5  Integration  with  other  European  Union  legislation:  Floods  Directive  and  Marine 

Strategy Framework Directive 

Sweden reported to  WISE that, in  each of its RBDs, the RBMP and  Floods Directive8 Flood 
Risk Management Plan were integrated into a single plan. Sweden has afterwards informed that 

separate RBMPs and FRMPs had been prepared and that each RBMP discuss coordination with 
the  Floods  Directive  and  relevant  FRMPs;  moreover,  some  County  Administrative  Boards 

considered measures and objectives under both the WFD and FD, and certain measures were 
included in both RBMPs and FRMPs.  

Sweden did not report that there was joint consultation of the RBMPs and FRMPs9.  

8   Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and  management  of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 

2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 

9  Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  the  consultation  periods  overlapped,  and  several  consultation  meetings 

addressed both the WFD and Floods Directive. 

27 

 
                                                      
Sweden  reported  that,  in  each  of  its  RBDs,  there  was  joint  consultation  with  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive10. Further information on integration with respect to the PoM in 
available in Chapter 9 of this report. 

1.1.6  International Coordination 

Sweden shares eight of its 10 RBDs with neighbouring countries. Two RBDs – Bothnian Bay 

(Bottenviken) and Bothnian Bay (Torne) – are shared with both Finland and Norway. For these 
two  RBDs,  an  international  agreement  and  a  permanent  co-operation  body  are  in  place 

(designated as category 2 cooperation).  

Sweden  shares  six  other  RBDs  –  Bothnian  Sea,  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat,  Bothnian  Sea 

(Trondelagsfylkene),  Bothnian  Bay  (Nordland),  Bothnian  Bay  (Troms),  and  Skagerrak  and 
Kattegat  (Glomma)  –  with  Norway.  It  is  reported  that  international  agreements  on  water 

management  without  permanent  co-operation  mechanisms  are  in  place  in  these  six  RBDs 
(designated  as  category  3  cooperation).  The  assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs  reported  that 

Sweden had close cooperation on water management with Norway and that a cooperation body 
was in place (designated as category 2 cooperation)11. Sweden has continued to have close co-
operation  with  Norway  and  Finland  and  it  appears  that  Sweden's  cooperation  with 

neighbouring countries has strengthened which indicates that there has been a reporting error in 
WISE 

The RBMPs for the shared RBDs between Norway  and Sweden  are established according to 
the following principles: each national  RBMP has two parts:  one  comprising the parts of the 

district in its own country, and a second part covering the international sections of the district 
(developed by the other country's authorities). The second part is an attachment to the national 

part of the RBMP. The entire document is provided for consultation in both countries. 

For further information, see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework 

Directive. 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There was no evidence of significant changes in the information reported to WISE. 

10   Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

11 Sweden subsequently noted that there might have been a reporting error. 

28 

 
                                                      
1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  It  is  recommended  that  the  more  detailed  sub-basin  plans  are 
reported as formal parts of the RBMPs and formally reported to the Commission and 

made available to the public, as they include important supplementary information. 

Assessment:  Sweden  did  not  report  sub-plans  to  WISE,  in  the  second  cycle,  but  has 

informed  that  sub  plans  for  some  RBDs  have  been  reported  in  appendices  to  the 
RBMPs and others made available on websites.  

Consequently, Sweden has partly fulfilled this recommendation. 

  Recommendation:  Sweden  needs  to  ensure  full  co-operation  with  neighbouring 
countries, including the correct designation of trans-boundary RBDs and co-operation 
on measures to ensure achievement of the environmental objectives. 

Assessment:  Sweden  has  continued  to  have  close  co-operation  with  Norway  and 
Finland.  This  includes  reporting  on  the  identification  of  transboundary  surface  water 
bodies, but not for transboundary groundwater bodies12. The delineation is coordinated 
with  joint  methods  partly  in  place.  It  is  not  clear  if  this  extends  to  the  correct 

designation of RBDs; five transboundary RBDs are designated, and managed as part of 
larger  RBDs  in  Sweden,  but  reported  separately.  Although  Sweden  and  Norway  have 

established  common  RBMPs,  there  is  insufficient  information  on  cooperation  on 
measures  to  assess  this  aspect  of  the  recommendation.  It  appears;  however,  that 

Sweden's  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries  has  strengthened  and  that  the 
recommendation is to a great extent fulfilled. 

 . 

12 Sweden subsequently informed that transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified, but not allocated as 
joint identifiers between Norway and Sweden, as it has been done for transboundary surface water bodies. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

2.1.1  Delineation  of  water  bodies  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water bodies 

There was an overall decrease in the number of river water bodies (-3 %) (Table 2.1) from the 

first to the second cycle. There has been an increase in the number of lake water bodies of 3 %, 
with the highest increase in the North Baltic Sea RBD, 24 %. The RBMPs explained that in the 

first cycle the conditions of some water bodies were too heterogeneous, so re-delineation was 
carried  out  to  improve  homogeneity  within  each  water  body  in  terms  of  type,  status  and 

pressures.  Some  water  bodies  have  been  removed  as  they  did  not  fulfil  the  criteria  for  water 
body delineation.  

The  numbers  of  coastal  water  bodies  increased  by  8  %  with  the  highest  increases  in  the 
Bothnian Sea RBD (33 %) and North Baltic Sea RBD (13 %). The RBMPs explained that some 

transitional water bodies were redefined as coastal water bodies, because it was not possible to 
distinguish  them  from  the  nearby  coastal  waters.  For  coastal  waters,  the  geographical 

conditions  have  also  been  used  for  delineation,  distinguishing  open  coastal  waters  from  bays 
and sounds and harbour areas. 

The criteria for delineating lakes and rivers remained the same in the second cycle with water 
bodies  greater  than  1km2  being  delineated  as  separate  water  bodies  and  river  reaches  greater 
than 15 km length (or catchments greater than 10 km2) as separate water bodies. In the second 
RBMPs,  delineation  has  also  included  some  smaller  water  bodies  in  Protected  Areas,  water 

bodies  of  special  ecological  value  or  water  bodies  impacting  an  existing  water  body.  Some 
small water bodies situated in Protected Areas have been delineated as separate water bodies, 

so their objectives will be in line with that of other water bodies in Protected Areas. For all the 
other small water bodies outside of Protected Areas there is no information in the RBMPs on 
how they are delineated and managed13.  

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Sweden between 
the  second  and  first  RBMPs.  It  is  notable  that  both  the  minimum  size  of  rivers  and  the 

maximum size have decreased overall.  

13 Sweden subsequently explained that all water within a river basin, irrespective of size, is indirectly covered by 

water management based on other Swedish environmental legislation. 

30 

 
                                                      
In  the  second  cycle,  97  %  of  identified  surface  water  bodies  were  natural  with  3  %  being 

designated as heavily modified and less than 1 % artificial. Overall there was very little change 
in  the  numbers  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second 

RBMPs, less than 1 % difference (Figure 2.1). The water use and physical alteration have been 
reported for each water body type. 

The  numbers  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  10  %  as  shown  in  Table  2.3  and  it  was 
explained in the RBMPs that this was due to updated mapping. For groundwater, some water 

bodies  have  been  split,  others  merged,  and  others  have  been  changed  in  terms  of  their 
geographic  distribution.  New  groundwater  bodies  used  for  drinking  water  supply  have  been 

delineated.  In  the  future,  more  groundwater  bodies  are  proposed  to  be  delineated  if  they  are 
connected to groundwater-dependent surface water bodies or ecosystems. 

There were 19 territorial water bodies reported in the second RBMP, but none were reported in 
the first RBMP. 

Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Sweden on how water bodies have evolved 
between  the  first  and  second  RBMP.  The  water  body  type  with  the  most  changes  was  river 
water bodies, with 217 water bodies created, 223 split and 552 deleted.  

31 

 
Table 2.1 

Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Sweden for the second and first RBMPs 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Year 

RBD 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

Total length 
of water 
body (km) 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

2010 

SENO1102 

2010 

SENO1103 

2010 

SENO1104 

2010 

SENO5101 

4 089 

664 

6 864 

624 

1 033 

1 672 

47 

64 

3 

32 

15 092 

4 221 

655 

7 295 

623 

968 

1 650 

48 

69 

3 

31 

21 732 

4 668 

26 594 

4 972 

9 433 

12 409 

121 

160 

13 

180 

80 282 

21 405 

4 538 

27 038 

4 942 

8 931 

12 048 

154 

223 

13 

175 

1 687 

273 

3 643 

423 

495 

807 

18 

52 

1 

23 

7 422 

1 627 

268 

3 635 

340 

478 

790 

18 

52 

1 

23 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 
6 631 

858 

8 435 

2 909 

4 177 

8 866 

25 

74 

1 

49 

32 025 

6 851 

892 

8 445 

2 887 

4 169 

5 776 

30 

87 

4 

50 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

120 

0 

61 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

110 

3 

85 

167 

178 

110 

0 

0 

0 

0 

653 

100 

3 

64 

148 

177 

110 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 
7 162 

80 

5 038 

7 220 

10 076 

4 109 

0 

0 

0 

0 

33 685 

7 178 

81 

5 042 

7 104 

10 075 

5 143 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2010 

Total 

15 563 

79 466 

7 232 

29 192 

21 

180 

602 

34623 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

Size distribution of surface water bodies in Sweden in the second and first cycle.  

Year 

RBD 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

2010  SENO1102 

2010  SENO1103 

2010  SENO1104 

2010  SENO5101 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Min 

0.02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.05 

0.25 

0.18 

0.73 

0.25 

0 

0.02 

0.02 

0 

0 

0.02 

0.13 

0.18 

0.69 

0.25 

Max 

Average  Min 

Max 

Average  Min 

Max 

Average  Min 

Max 

Average 

160.14 

239.37 

93.75 

41.32 

51.89 

49.11 

12.26 

10.15 

8.61 

17.17 

160.15 

233.15 

94.12 

41.31 

51.89 

49.15 

21.16 

13.6 

8.61 

17.18 

5.31 

7.03 

3.87 

7.97 

9.13 

7.42 

2.58 

2.5 

4.28 

5.63 

5.07 

6.93 

3.71 

7.93 

9.23 

7.3 

3.2 

3.22 

4.26 

5.66 

0.01 

0.02 

0 

0.04 

0.07 

0.03 

0.11 

0.01 

1.28 

0.07 

0.01 

0.04 

0 

0.1 

0.07 

0 

0.1 

0.03 

4.12 

0.06 

262.39 

329.85 

456.27 

377.36 

1850.48 

3.93 

3.14 

2.32 

6.88 

8.44 

3087.68 

10.99 

17.87 

28.05 

1.28 

10.16 

262.44 

330 

456.33 

528.57 

1850.77 

2013.77 

17.88 

28.05 

4.12 

10.17 

1.4 

1.43 

1.28 

2.15 

4.21 

3.33 

2.32 

8.49 

8.72 

7.31 

1.65 

1.68 

4.12 

2.17 

0.15 

6.81 

0.5 

0.16 

0.4 

0.15 

0.81 

6.84 

0.5 

0.16 

0.4 

0.15 

2329.07 

65.11 

39.62 

710.56 

643.66 

885.84 

349.04 

26.8 

59.27 

43.23 

56.61 

37.36 

2334.18 

39.75 

1049.69 

644.11 

885.96 

898 

71.78 

26.89 

78.79 

48 

56.92 

46.75 

0.77 

33.53 

6.31 

22.96 

37.64 

30.3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Sweden for the second 
and first cycle  

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum 

Average 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

Total 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SENO1102 

SENO1103 

SENO1104 

SENO5101 

622 

74 

832 

574 

667 

539 

1 

2 

3311 

594 

61 

779 

529 

580 

477 

1 

2 

0.01 

0.08 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

1.1 

0.2 

0.01 

0.08 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

1.1 

0.2 

271.25 

306.05 

5152.46 

447.7 

1820.60 

888.1 

6.57 

22.58 

12.88 

2.97 

22.97 

12.87 

1.1 

1.1 

0.94 

0.57 

271.62 

306.43 

5,155.95 

447.72 

1837.01 

888.45 

6.73 

26.84 

13.76 

3.09 

26.32 

13.9 

1.1 

1.1 

0.94 

0.57 

Total 

3023 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Sweden designated as artificial, heavily 

modified and natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note that the numbers 
in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 2.4 

Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in 
Sweden between the second and first cycles. Note that transitional waters are 

not delineated in the second cycle.  

Type of water body change for second cycle 
(wiseEvolutionType) 

Groundwater   Rivers 

Lakes  Coastal  Territorial 

Aggregation 

Change 

changeBothAggregationAndSplitting 

changeCode 

changeExtendedArea 

changeReducedArea 

Creation 

Deletion 

noChange 

Splitting 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from 
first cycle) 

3 

107 

286 

21 

2895 

20 

3332 

3311 

209 

698 

20 

111 

13 

1 

217 

552 

5 

140 

51 

11 

5 

190 

33 

13600 

6964 

223 

56 

15644 

7455 

15092 

7422 

1 

1 

5 

1 

596 

49 

653 

653 

19 

19 

19 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Data for transitional water bodies was not reported. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2  Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Transboundary  river  and  lake  water  bodies  have  been  identified  in  all  the  following  RBDs: 
Bothnian  Bay,  Bothnian  Sea,  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat,  Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene), 

Bothnian Bay (Nordland), Bothnian  Bay  (Troms), and Skagerrak and Kattegat  (Glomma).  In 
addition,  transboundary  lake  water  bodies  have  been  identified  in  Bothnian  Bay  (Torne)  and 

coastal  water  bodies  in  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD.  No  transboundary  groundwater 
bodies have been reported to WISE14. 

Coordination  on  delineation  of  transboundary  water  bodies  has  been  carried  out.  The  joint 
methods are partly in  place, including no longer clipping a transboundary  water body in  two 

different national parts, but rather delineating it as a whole, based on type, pressures and status, 
regardless  of  the  national  border  passing  through  it.  There  are;  however,  differences  in  the 

delineation of lakes, between  Norway,  Finland and Sweden,  with  Norway  and  Finland using 
0.5 km2 as the limit for delineating a lake water body, while Sweden sometimes uses 1 km2 as 
the limit, thus not delineating part of the lakes between 0.5 to 1 km2, which are quite a lot of 
lakes.  The  water  body-ID  for  transboundary  water  bodies  between  Sweden  and  Norway 
follows the Swedish ID system, but uses ‘SENO’ in front of the number; however, for the third 

RBMPs, this will change most likely to using the national water body ID system of the country 
into which the water flows. 

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

The  Swedish  typology  uses  ecoregion  as  a  basis.  The  distinction  between  the  Northern  and 

Southern  ecoregions  are  based  on  differences  in  freshwater  flora  and  fauna  according  to  the 
glaciation  history  in  Sweden.  The  reference  conditions  for  biological  quality  elements  in 

Swedish water bodies are estimated for each water body, using various modelling techniques, 
but not for each type, using different ranges of abiotic typology factors than those used in the 

main  typology  system.  Therefore,  it  is  unclear  whether,  or  to  what  extent,  the  typology  is 
biologically relevant for all the national types.  

There are in total 77 lake water types, 52 river water types, and 27 coastal water types (but no 
longer any transitional water bodies, see under delineation above) (Table 2.5). In general, the 

number  types  decreased  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  especially  for  river  water 
bodies. 

14  Sweden  has  subsequently  clarified  that  two  transboundary  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported  in  spatial 

data in WISE. 

36 

 
                                                      
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  ‘Not  applicable’  if  there  is  no  corresponding 

intercalibration type for national types. Many national types  (heavily modified, artificial, and 
natural) have been intercalibrate; however, in  each of the RBDs there are several  river, lake, 

and  coastal  water  bodies  that  are  reported  not  to  have  corresponding  intercalibration  types, 
approximately  80  %  of  river  water  bodies,  19  %  of  coastal  water  bodies,  and  16  %  of  lake 

water  bodies.  The  RBMPs  reported  that  the  Swedish  classification  system  has  been 
successfully intercalibrated for all the biological quality elements for national types that have 

been linked to common intercalibration types. 

Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Sweden for the first 
and second cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Territorial 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

11 

8 

28 

15 

22 

30 

5 

4 

1 

6 

11 

8 

28 

15 

22 

29 

5 

4 

1 

7 

18 

13 

37 

21 

31 

34 

4 

6 

1 

7 

19 

13 

36 

24 

32 

34 

4 

6 

1 

7 

4 

2 

4 

6 

4 

2 

4 

7 

11 

11 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

TOTAL 

53 

52 

76 

77 

25 

27 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are 

shared by RBDs. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Type  specific  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  relevant  biological  quality 

elements, physicochemical quality elements, and hydromorphological quality elements for all 
coastal water bodies, but not for rivers or lakes, as shown in Table 2.6. This may lead to some 

weaknesses in the classification of status/potential for rivers and lakes.  

Sweden  did  not  coordinate  the  identification  of  type-specific  reference  conditions  with  other 

Member States;  however, for the second RBMPs, the reference  conditions  for transboundary 
water bodies follows the classification system used in the country into which the water flows. 

In  Sweden,  reference  conditions  are  estimated  with  models  for  each  water  body,  while  in 

37 

 
 
 
 
Norway  and  Finland, the reference conditions  are type-specific. The reference conditions  for 

the  different  biological  quality  elements  are  nevertheless  intercalibrated  for  national  types 
corresponding to the common intercalibration types, so to some extent the reference conditions 

are comparable. Further information on references conditions is provided in Chapter 3 of this 
report. 

Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in Sweden with reference conditions 
established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological, and 

physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 
types in each category 

Water category  Water types 

Biological quality 
elements 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

Lakes (77) 

Rivers (52) 

Coastal (27) 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Note: Sweden has object-specific reference values in general, which do not appear in Table 6. 

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside, along with 
the  details  of  whether  groundwater  bodies  are  layered,  have  been  reported.  Further 

characterisation  work  has  been  reported  since  the  first  RBMP  with  the  inclusion  of  the 
assessment of linkages  with  surface water bodies and terrestrial  ecosystems  for all RBDs.  In 

the  future,  more  groundwater  bodies  are  proposed  to  be  delineated  if  they  are  connected  to 
groundwater-dependent surface water bodies or ecosystems. 

2.1.6  Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies 

In the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported to affect the largest proportion (100 

% of surface water bodies), followed by dams, barriers, and locks (24 %)  (Figure 2.2) In the 
first cycle, Sweden only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was 

a  large  increase  in  the  number  of  occasions  where  “No  significant  pressures”  were  reported 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  with  an  increase  in  the  reporting  of  point  and 

hydromorphological pressures (Figure 2.3). For groundwater bodies “No significant pressures” 
was reported most frequently (82 % of groundwater bodies).  

Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 
bodies in Sweden for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Sweden in the first and 

second cycle. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 
23186 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 23418 for the 

first cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The reasons for the increase in ‘no significant pressures’ being reported for surface waters and 

the high proportion reported for groundwater could  relate to  the changes in  the methodology 
for defining pressures as discussed in the next section. 

For  the  second  RBMP,  it  was  reported  that  the  following  significant  pressures  were  not 
assessed  for  surface  waters:  “Exploitation  or  removal  of  animals  or  plants”,  “Litter  or  fly 

tipping”,  “Groundwater  –  Recharges”,  and  “Groundwater  -  Alteration  of  water  level  or 
volume”. For groundwater it was reported that 25 significant pressures were not assessed, these 

were surface water specific pressures such as dams and hydrological changes. 

In  the  second  RBMP,  the  most  significant  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  was  chemical 
pollution (100 % of surface water bodies), followed by altered habitats due to morphological 
changes (41 %) (Figure 2.4). Sweden did not report on impacts in the first cycle. 

40 

 
 
 
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Sweden for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

For  surface  waters,  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  for  defining  significant 

pressures  from  point  and  diffuse  sources,  abstraction,  and  water  flow  pressures.  For  surface 
water  bodies,  significance  of  pressures  is  reported  as  being  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of 

objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds. 

New  and  more  reliable  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  were  established  after  a 
national  classification  project  WATERS  (ending  in  2013).  This  allowed  a  more  confident 

41 

 
 
 
 
assessment of pressures than what was feasible for the first RBMPs. Sweden has made major 

attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures, developing a 
set  of  new  methods  for  each  of  the  major  pressure/impact  categories:  nutrient  enrichment, 

acidification, contamination by hazardous substances (both River Basin Specific Pollutants and 
Priority Substances), and morphological pressures. They also identified qualitative criteria for 

assessing significant pressure from invasive species. For some pressures, threshold values are 
given to assess whether a pressure is significant or not. 

Significant pressures were defined for all water bodies in less than good status, as well as water 
bodies at good status, where there was a risk of deterioration. For pressures in rivers, lakes, and 

coastal waters, the tools used to assess significant pressures are monitoring data, GIS analyses, 
models  estimating  the  absolute  and  relative  magnitude  of  the  pressure,  and  threshold  values 

linking the pressure to the boundary for the sensitive biological quality elements, as well as the 
qualitative  criteria  for  invasive  species.  The  approach  used  to  link  the  significance  for 

pressures to status was described as follows:  

  For nutrients  and  contaminants,  point sources and diffuse sources are identified in  all 
water  bodies  in  less  than  good  status,  and  models  were  used  to  estimate  the  source 
apportionment,  depending  on  land  use,  including  agriculture,  forestry,  wetlands, 

industries, polluted sites, roads, railroads, atmospheric deposition.  

  For  contaminants,  water,  sediments  and  biota  for  groups  of  Priority  Substances  were 

considered and for relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants.  

  For acidification, threshold values were defined based on the boundary for acidification 
sensitive biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements. Reference 
conditions were estimated with the MAGIC model. Water bodies with pH > 6 (or 6.5 

depending on reference pH) were considered not to be acidified. For water bodies with 
no data, results are extrapolated from comparable water bodies (grouping).  

  For  morphological  pressures,  guidance  was  developed  in  a  separate  project  called 
HyMo  and  is  summarized  in  a  report  called  Vattenmyndigheterna  2013b,  VMHyMo-
Länsstyrelsen  Västmanlands  län,  dnr.  537-2599-15  Rapport:  Påverkanstryck  på 

morfologiska förhållanden (not accessible online).  

  For invasive species, the criteria for identifying whether there is a significant pressure 
based  on  whether  the  invasive  species  is  outcompeting  native  species,  it  can  be 

42 

 
poisonous,  spread  disease,  hybridise  with  native  species,  or  is  a  predator  on  native 

species and/or affect food webs. 

For  groundwaters,  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  for  defining  significant 

pressures  from  point  and  diffuse  sources.  For  abstraction  and  artificial  recharge  and  other 
pressures expert judgement was used. The significance of pressures is reported to be linked to 

the  potential  failure  of  objectives  but  the  significance  of  pressures  has  not  been  defined  in 
terms of thresholds. 

2.1.7  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

In  five  of  the  eight  RBDs  (with  groundwater  bodies  delineated)  between  1.5  and  37  %  of 

groundwater  bodies  were  reported  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  to  meet  good  chemical  status.  The 
pollutants  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  have  been 

reported for all RBDs. Further information is provided in Chapter 6 of this report. 

In four of the eight RBDs between 1.5 % and 6 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at 

risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. Further information is provided in Chapter 5 of 
this report. 

2.1.8  Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives 

There  are  some  inconsistencies  in  the  pressures  for  which  measures  are  planned  and  the 
significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Bothnian Bay RBD, 

Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants has been reported at the surface water body 
level  but  this  pressure  has  not  been  reported  as  being  tackled  in  the  PoM.  Similarly  in  the 

Bothnian Sea RBD, Diffuse – Urban runoff has been reported at the  groundwater body level 
but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the PoM15. Further information on 
the PoM is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. 

The Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle 

these  substances  to  achieve  good  status  by  2027  have  not  been  reported  but  this  is  optional. 

15  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  there  are  a  few  reasons  for  the  inconsistencies:  (1)  the  classification  of 
significant  pressures  was  against  an  earlier  list  of  pressure  types;  (2)  the  method  in  Sweden  has  focused  on 
remedying the impacts rather than the pressures; and (3) the measures in the Swedish programs of measures in 
general  addresses  other  authorities  should  take  into  account  in  their  daily  work  in  a  way  that  the  direct 
measures needed to reach the environmental objectives will be performed. The reported summary of measures 
in the  reporting, is  what the authorities are  expected to achieve during the  next cycle  and it is apparent that 
there is some inconsistencies or lack of coherence. The way the need for pressure reduction and measures are 
determined  has  undergone  revision,  as  well  as  the  way  it  is  registered  in  the  Water  Information  System 
Sweden  which  will  give a  much clearer view of the  connection between pressure and  measure and all other 
aspects of water management. 

43 

 
                                                      
Further  information  on  Priority  Substances  causing  the  failure  of  good  chemical  status  is 

provided in Chapter 4 and on measures in Chapter 12 of this report. 

2.1.9  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standard  Directive (2008/105/EC)16 requires Member 
States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances 

and  the  eight  other  pollutants  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  Environmental  Quality 
Standard Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying  within their territory. This  inventory 

should  allow  Member  States  to  further  target  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  priority 
substances.  It  should  also  inform  the  review  of  the  monitoring  networks,  and  allow  the 

assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses 
for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). 

Sweden reported whether or not each of the Priority Substances was included in an inventory. 
Only the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and 

Kattegat RBDs reported on the number of substances within the inventory, which ranged from 
only six to eight Priority Substances (i.e. five RBDs did not report any inventory for any of the 
Priority  Substances17).  Insufficient  monitoring  was  the  reason  given  in  the  RBMP  for  not 
including more.  

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°2818 
has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For some substances in the 
inventories  (including  some  substances  deemed  relevant  at  RBD  level),  Tier  1  of  the 

methodology  was  implemented;  for  the  others  a  combination  of  Tier  1  (point  source 
information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was used, while the Guidance Document recommends 

to  apply  at  least  Tier  1  +  2  for  substances  relevant  at  RBD  level.  The  data  quality  was  not 
reported. 

16 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913 

17 These are small RBDs which are included in the five main ones. 
18CIS  Guidance  N° 

Preparation 

28 

of 

- 

Priority 

Substances 

Emissions 

Inventory 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm 

44 

 
                                                      
2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There was an overall decrease in the number of river water bodies (-3 %). There has been an 
increase  in  the  number  of  lake  water  bodies  of  3  %,  with  the  highest  increase  in  the  North 

Baltic  Sea  RBD  of  24  %.  The  numbers  of  coastal  water  bodies  increased  by  8  %  with  the 
highest increases in the Bothnian Sea RBD (33 %) and North Baltic Sea RBD (13 %). Some 

transitional water bodies were redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not possible to 
distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. The numbers of groundwater bodies increased 
by 10 %. There were 19 territorial water bodies reported in the second RBMP but none were 

reported in the first cycle.  

In the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported to affect the largest proportion of 

surface  water  bodies,  followed  by  dams,  barriers  and  locks.  In  the  first  cycle,  Sweden  only 
reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase in the 

number  of  occasions  where  “No  significant  pressures”  were  reported  between  the  first  and 
second  RBMPs.  For  groundwater  bodies,  “no  significant  pressures”  was  reported  most 

frequently. The reasons for the increase in ‘no significant pressures’ being reported for surface 
waters  and  the  high  proportion  reported  for  groundwater  likely  relates  to  the  changes  in 

methodology of the identification of pressures. 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  Sweden  needs  to  lower  its  minimum  size  threshold  for  lakes  to 

ensure all relevant water bodies are included.  

Assessment: In the first RBMP, the minimum threshold for lake water bodies that was 
used in all RBDs was 1km2 and there was national guidance for smaller lakes but the 
details were lacking. In the second RBMP the minimum threshold for lake water bodies 
that  was  used  in  all  RBDs  was  reported  to  be  1km2.  For  the  Bothnian  Bay  (Troms) 
RBD  4km2 was the mimimum lake size used in the first RBMP and 1km2 in the second 
RBMP.  It  was  reported  in  the  RBMPs  that  some  small  water  bodies  situated  in 

Protected Areas have been delineated as separate water bodies, so their objectives will 

45 

 
be  in  line  with  that  of  other  water  bodies  in  Protected  Areas.  Therefore  this 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled for the second RBMP19.  

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of  the  RBDs,  identification  of  pressures,  and  assessment  of  status,  these  need  to  be 
addressed in  the current cycle, to  ensure that adequate measures can be  put  in  place 

before the next cycle. 

Assessment:  This  recommendation  applies  to  a  number  of  topics.  In  terms  of 

characterisation of significant pressures, for surface waters, numerical tools and expert 
judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, 

abstraction  and  water  flow  pressures.  For  surface  water  bodies,  significance  of 
pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives and therefore 

would  be  linked  to  water  status.  For  groundwaters,  numerical  tools  and  expert 
judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. 

For abstraction and artificial recharge and other pressures, expert judgement was used. 
The  significance  of  pressures  is  also  reported  to  be  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of 

objectives. Sweden has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance 
in their analyses of pressures since the first RBMPs, developing a set of new methods 

for  each  of  the  major  pressure/impact  categories:  nutrient  enrichment,  acidification, 
contamination  by  hazardous  substances  and  morphological  pressures.  They  also 

identified  qualitative  criteria  for  assessing  significant  pressure  from  invasive  species. 
For  some  pressures,  threshold  values  are  given  to  assess  whether  a  pressure  is 

significant or not. Therefore this part of the recommendation has been fulfilled.  

In terms of intercalibration, Swedish authorities have clarified that the intercalibration 

had not been completed by the time of adoption of the first RBMPs, but that the process 
was  due  to  be  completed  in  2011.  However,  in  each  of  the  RBDs,  there  are  several 

river,  lake  and  coastal  water  bodies  that  are  reported  not  to  have  corresponding 
intercalibration types in the second RBMP, approximately 80 % of river water bodies, 

19 % of coastal water bodies and 16 % of lake water bodies. The RBMPs reported that 
the  Swedish  classification  system  has  been  successfully  intercalibrated  for  all  the 
biological  quality  elements  for  national  types  that  have  been  linked  to  common 

intercalibration types. Therefore this part of the recommendation has been fulfilled. 

19 Sweden subsequently clarified that irrespective of  whether a  water body  meets the  minimum  size  criteria, all 
water within a river basin is indirectly covered by water management based on other Swedish environmental 
legislation  

46 

 
                                                      
  Recommendation: Sweden needs to complete the initial characterisation, to enable the 
establishment of WFD compliant monitoring networks. It is important to complete this 
first stage of the WFD implementation process to ensure cost effective implementation 

of subsequent steps. 

Assessment:  There  has  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  lake  water  bodies,  coastal 

water  bodies  and  groundwater  bodies  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  with  a 
slight decrease in river water bodies. There is also evidence of further characterisation 

of  groundwaters.  The  RBMPs  explained  that  the  transitional  water  bodies  were 
redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not possible to distinguish them from 

the nearby coastal waters. The number of water types is assessed against the previous 
recommendation.  It  therefore  appears  that  characterisation  has  been  updated  and  this 

recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  There  is  no  clear  link  between  status  assessment  and  the  need  for 
pressure  reduction  (nutrients,  chemical  pollutants  and  hydromorphology)  and 
measures. Many of the measures are "administrative" (new investigations, monitoring 

etc) 

Assessment: This recommendation relate to more than one topic. In terms of significant 

pressures,  in  the  second  RBMP,  atmospheric  deposition  was  reported  to  affect  the 
largest proportion of surface water bodies, followed by dams, barriers and locks. In the 

first  cycle,  Sweden  only  reported  pressures  at  an  aggregated  level.  Overall  it  appears 
there was a large increase in the number of occasions where “No significant pressures” 

were  reported  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  For  groundwater  bodies  “No 
significant pressures” was reported most frequently. These changes are likely a result of 

the  changes  to  the  methodology  of  the  assessment  of  pressures.  Sweden  has  made 
major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of pressures 

since  the  first  RBMPs,  developing  a  set  of  new  methods  that  are  linked  to  status 
objectives.  Based  on  the  available  information  it  appears  that  these  recommendations 
have been fulfilled.  

47 

 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 
status in surface water bodies 

3.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
in 
the  second  RBMPs  and  main  changes 

requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 

in 

3.1.1  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Information  on  monitoring  programmes  was  reported  from  eight  RBDs  in  Sweden. 
Programmes were designed in terms of surface water or groundwater and for each in terms of 

purpose – surveillance and operational, plus quantitative for groundwater. For most RBDs and 
water categories, there  were programmes for surveillance  and operational  monitoring.  In one 

RBD (Bothnian Bay (Nordland)), only lakes were included in  a monitoring programme even 
though rivers were also reported for this RBD. 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational 
monitoring 

A  major  difference  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is  that  no  transitional  water  bodies 
were identified for the second RBMPs, while 21 transitional water bodies were identified for 

the  first  and  had  been  monitored.  There  is  also  another  major  difference  in  the  information 
reported for the first RBMPs. The Commission Staff Working Document on the first RBMPs20 
includes  values  for  the  number  of  monitoring  sites.  Sweden  resubmitted  some  of  its 
information  to  WISE  in  November  2012,  including  for  surface  water  monitoring  sites.  The 

resubmitted  values  are  significantly  different  from  those  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document: for example 40 river surveillance sites in the Bothnian Bay RBD were shown in the 

Commission Staff Working Document and 560 in the resubmitted information to WISE. The 
comparisons here are made with the resubmitted data on the first RBMPs. 

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 
purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and  Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used 

for different purposes for the second RBMPs. 

20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/third_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol3_SE.pdf 

48 

 
                                                      
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Sweden 

for the second and first RBMPs. NB - For reasons of comparability with data 
reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take 

into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical 
monitoring. 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

SE_1 

SE_2 

SE_3 

SE_4 

SE_5 

SE_5101 

SE_1103 

SE_1TO 

956 

746 

634 

1208 

1860 

33 

0 

75 

542 

531 

328 

704 

1869 

38 

0 

18 

450 

410 

748 

725 

941 

17 

2 

86 

57 

171 

329 

301 

644 

14 

0 

8 

155 

137 

252 

291 

309 

 2 

Total by type of site 

5512 

4030 

3379 

1524 

0 

0 

1144 

57 

95 

213 

175 

174 

 1 

714 

Total number of 
monitoring sites used for 
operational and 
surveillance monitoring 

first RBMP 

SE_1 

SE_2 

SE_3 

SE_4 

SE_5 

SE_5101 

6210 

3597 

0 

1157 

560 

960 

393 

921 

445 

655 

353 

787 

1454 

1624 

15 

20 

373 

602 

419 

642 

716 

10 

98 

312 

359 

485 

768 

15 

69 

145 

174 

360 

154 

56 

61 

175 

334 

157 

11 

11 

6 

6 

Total by type of site 

4303 

3884 

2762 

2037 

17 

17 

902 

783 

Total number of 
monitoring sites 

8187 

4799 

34 

1685 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting 

49 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 
purposes in Sweden21 

Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Territorial 

BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iii 

CHE - Chemical status 

DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 

ECO - Ecological status 

NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates 
Directive22 - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 
OPE - Operational monitoring 

SEA - International network of a sea convention 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

510 

18 

5960 

113 

4030 

25 

83 

5512 

6210 

86 

846 

47 

3270 

461 

1524 

73 

3379 

3597 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

309 

905 

119 

715 

1146 

1157 

9 

7 

5 

7 

16 

16 

For  all  three  water  categories  (six  RBDs),  more  sites  were  used  for  surveillance  than  for 

operational monitoring for the second RBMPs. Overall in the six RBDs (with data for both the 
first and second RBMPs), 5437 sites were used for surveillance monitoring compared to 4012 

for operational monitoring. 

Comparing the six RBDs with data for both the first and second RBMPs shows that there has 

been an overall increase in the numbers of surveillance sites in coastal waters (+27 %), lakes 
(+19  %)  and  rivers  (+26  %)  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  There  were  differences 

between the RBDs, with significant  decreases in  numbers in  all three water categories in  the 
Bothnian Sea RBD. In contrast, there was a decrease in the number of operational sites overall 

in the six RBDs in coastal waters (-9 %) and lakes (-26 %). For coastal  waters, the decrease 
was only in one of the six RBDs; whereas all six RBDs showed a decrease in the numbers of 
lake  operational  monitoring  sites.  Overall,  there  was  a  3  %  increase  in  the  number  of 

operational river sites, with three RBDs showing an increase and three a decrease. 

For the first RBMPs, Sweden reported information on monitoring for six RBDs, while for the 

second RBMPs information on monitoring was reported on eight of the 10 RBDs. Based on the 

21 The numbers given in this table concern the monitoring sites used for the WFD, as operational or surveillance 
sites  and  other  purposes  these  monitoring  sites  are  used  for.  They  do  not  include  monitoring  sites  used  for 
those other purposes but not for the WFD. 

22   Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 

caused by nitrates from agricultural sources  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
comparison  of  the  same  six  RBDs  for  both  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  it  seems  that  the 

proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring has increased: 64 % of coastal 
water bodies had surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs and 45 % for the first. These 

proportions  are  29  %  and  27  %  for  lakes,  20  %  and  15  %  for  rivers.  There  was  a  similar 
increase in the proportion of coastal and river water bodies included in operational monitoring 

but a small decrease in the proportion of lakes. 

Monitored quality elements 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  surface  waters  for  the 
second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

For the second RBMPs there were still gaps in the biological quality elements reported to be 
monitored. Angiosperms are not monitored in any of the RBDs with coastal waters, and in one 
of  them  (Bothnian  Bay),  macroalgae  are  also  not  monitored23.  The  monitoring  of  lakes  does 
not  include  phytobenthos  in  any  RBD,  benthic  invertebrates  are  not  included  in  three  of  the 

seven RBDs with lakes, macrophytes in four and fish in two. Macrophytes were not reported to 
be  monitored  in  all  seven  RBDs  with  rivers  and  benthic  invertebrates  in  one  RBD.  Benthic 
invertebrates were reported to be monitored in territorial waters, even if ecological status does 

not apply there. 

Morphological conditions are not monitored in any water category or RBD in Sweden: this is a 

major gap. Hydrological regime is also not monitored in coastal waters and, for one RBD, in 
lakes, again a significant gap.  

There  are  also  gaps  in  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  monitored.  Thermal  conditions 
and  salinity  conditions  are  not  reported  to  be  monitored  in  any  RBD  or  water  category.24 
Acidification  status  is  also  not  monitored  in  coastal  waters,  and  the  same  applies  to 
oxygenation conditions in lakes in three of the eight RBDs with lakes and in rivers in six of the 

seven RBDs  with  rivers. Transparency  conditions  are  also  not  monitored in  lakes in  three of 
the eight RBDs with lakes. 

23 Sweden subsequently explained that macroalgae is not suitable for monitoring in the Bothnian Bay due to low 

salinity.   

24  Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  those  quality  elements  are  always  monitored  in  combination  with 
monitoring of nutrients, but were not reported because Sweden linked all monitoring to classification and there 
is no classification of salinity and thermal conditions. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  Sweden  (excluding 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants).  NB  -  Quality  elements  may  be  used  for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  monitoring.  Some  Member  States  reported 

“other  aquatic  flora”  rather  than  the  component  sub-quality  elements, 
macrophytes, phytobenthos, angiosperms and macroalgae. 

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality 
elements 

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

Ye
s 

No 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

Ye
s 

Ye
s 

y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Coastal 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Coastal 

Yes 

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

No  Yes  Yes 

Ye
s 

Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

Yes 

No  Yes  No 

r
o
l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
r
d
y
H

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

No 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

No 

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

No 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

5
2
s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

6
2
s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

No 

r
e
h
t
O

r
o
f
d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Compared  to  the  situation  for  the  first  RBMPs,  macrophytes  are  still  missing  in  rivers, 
phytobenthos in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters: there has been no change or progress. 

For the second RBMPs,  nitrogen is now monitored in coastal waters and in  rivers and lakes, 
where  phosphorous  is  monitored,  indicating  that  there  has  been  some  progress  in  terms  of 

25  Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  only  the  monitoring  used  in  classification  has  been  reported.  Nitrogen  is 
generally  not  used  in  classification  in  rivers  and  lakes  since  phosphorous  is  the  most  limiting  nutrient. 
Nitrogen is however monitored in all waters where phosphorous monitoring is reported. 

26  Sweden  subsequently  stated  that  phosphorus  is  measured  at  all  coastal  sites  where  nitrogen  is  measured. 
Furthermore, it is also used in the classifications of coastal waters and should therefore have been reported to 
WISE. 

52 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
monitoring physicochemical quality elements in coastal waters. Compared to the first RBMPs, 

hydrological regime is now monitored in rivers and lakes but not in coastal waters, which again 
indicates some progress. Morphological conditions are still not monitored in any water bodies, 

so there is no progress with this group of quality elements.  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 

quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a 
period  of  one  year  during  the  six-year  period  covered  by  a  RBMP.  For  phytoplankton,  this 

should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements 
once during the year. Operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once 

every six months for phytoplankton  and once every three  years during the six-year  cycle  for 
the  other  biological  quality  elements.  Greater  intervals  may  be  justified  on  the  basis  of 

technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

None of the 10 biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring in rivers, lakes and 

coastal waters was sampled at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites. 
The  largest  proportion  of  sites  that  met  or  exceeded  this  minimum  recommended  frequency 
was  for  phytoplankton  in  coastal  waters  (95  %  of  sites  included  in  surveillance  monitoring), 

benthic invertebrates in lakes (90 %) and benthic invertebrates in rivers (87 %). 

Two of the 10 biological quality elements used for operational monitoring of rivers, lakes and 

coastal waters were sampled at least at the minimum frequency at all of the sampling sites used 
for  operational  monitoring:  macroalgae  and  benthic  invertebrates  in  coastal  waters.  Fish  in 

lakes were only sampled at the minimum frequency at 11 % of sites and phytobenthos in rivers 
at 64 % of sites. 

Monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants  

When  it  comes  to  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  29  different  ones  were  reported  to  be 
monitored overall in Sweden; nine were reported to be monitored in biota (five in fish, four in 

other biota), seven in settled sediment and 28 in water. Biota, settled sediment and water were 
monitored in all three water categories (coastal waters, lakes and rivers). Table 3.4 shows the 

number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs. 

53 

 
 
 
Table 3.4 

Number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  the 

second  RBMPs  and  non-priority  specific  pollutants  and/or  other  national 
pollutants  for  the  first  RBMPs  in  Sweden.  NB  -  The  data  from  both  cycles 

may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all 
Member States reported information at the site level, meaning that there were 

no equivalent data for the first RBMPs 

RBMP 

second   Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 

first 

Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or 
other national pollutants 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

362 

- 

402 

- 

145 

- 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting 

River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in a few water bodies (Table 10).  However, the 

monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  done  for  the  second  RBMPs  represents  a 
significant  improvement  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  when  these  pollutants  were  not 

reported to be monitored in any RBD (Table 10). 

In terms of the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in Sweden as a 

whole, zinc was monitored at the most sites (750), followed by copper (670), chromium (510) 
and arsenic (358).  

According  to  section  1.3.4  of  Annex  V  of  the  WFD  the  minimum  recommended  sampling 
frequency  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  is  four  times  in 

one year of the six-year RBMP cycle. None of the River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored 
in water in Sweden was monitored at this or a higher frequency at all the sites where they were 

monitored.  For  12  pollutants  none  of  the  sites  was  monitored  at  least  at  the  recommended 
frequency,  while  for  three  pollutants  over  50  %  of  sites  were  sampled  at  the  minimum 

frequency. 

In  Sweden  as  a  whole  approximately  twice  as  many  sites  were  used  for  the  surveillance 

monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  water  than  for  operational  purposes.  The 
degree to which the minimum recommended frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific 

Pollutants  for  operational  monitoring  was  met  was  greater  than  for  surveillance  monitoring. 
For  three  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  operational  monitoring  all  sites  were 

monitored  at  least  at  the  minimum  frequency  of  once  every  three  months,  for  11  substances 
between 50 and 100 % of sites were sampled at least at the minimum frequency, while for 10 

substances none of the sites was. 

54 

 
 
Annex  V,  section  1.3.4  of  the  WFD  does  not  explicitly  define  the  matrices  to  which  the 

minimum  required  frequency  of  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (“Other 
Pollutants”) applies. Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in 

biota  and  sediment  in  Article  3(2)(c)  of  EQS  Directive  2008/105/EC:  once  per  year  for 
operational  and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this required frequency of 

once  per  year  has  been  applied  to  the  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in 
biota/sediment.  

Nine different River Basin Specific Pollutants are reported to be monitored in settled sediment 
in Sweden. For only one pollutant are all the sites monitored at the minimum frequency during 

the  RBMP  cycle.  Seven  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored  in  biota 
(unspecified), fish or other biota. For around 50 % of pollutant/matrix combinations, all sites 

were monitored at least once every year. 

The monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants is reported to be used for status assessment 

for all substances and matrices. The analytical methods are in line with Article 4(1) of Quality 
Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for 21 substances, or Article 4(2) for the 
remaining identified substances except the two estradiols (CAS 50-28-2-17 and 57-63-6-17).   

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 

Figure  3.1  shows  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  subject  to  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring 

for each status/potential class. 

55 

 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring  in  Sweden  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  NB  -  No 
differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or 
chemical monitoring.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 3.2 

Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are 
included in surveillance monitoring in Sweden.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting. A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and 
including all types of quality element can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

56 

 
 
 
None  of  the  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  river  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring 

are  monitored  for  all  required  biological  or  hydromorphological  or  physicochemical  quality 
elements, which shows a potential lack of compliance with the WFD.  

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

The biological quality element most often used for operational monitoring of coastal waters is 
phytoplankton  (in  68  %  of  the  water  bodies  included  in  operational  monitoring):  benthic 

invertebrates  were  used  in  36  %  and  macroalgae  in  12  %.  Three  physicochemical  quality 
elements  were  used  in  operational  monitoring  with  nitrogen  conditions  being  used  in  the 

largest proportion (76 %). Hydromorphological quality elements were not used at all. 

Four  biological  quality  elements  were  used  for  the  operational  monitoring  of  lakes,  with 

phytoplankton being most often used (35 % of lakes included in operational monitoring). Four 
physicochemical quality elements were also used in operational monitoring with determinands 

indicative  of  acidification  status  being  used  in  most  lakes  (71  %).  Three  percent  of  lakes  in 
operational monitoring were also monitored for hydrological regime: morphological conditions 
were not monitored at all. 

Fish was the most frequently used biological quality element in the operational monitoring of 
rivers  (41  %  of  water  bodies  in  operational  monitoring):  phytobenthos  and  benthic 

invertebrates  were  also  used.  Acidification  status  was  monitored  in  the  largest  proportion  of 
rivers  included  in  operational  monitoring  (62  %)  followed  by  phosphorus  conditions  (38  %) 

and oxygenation conditions (0.4 %). Five percent of rivers in operational monitoring were also 
monitored for hydrological regime, while morphological conditions were not monitored at all. 

Although  ecological  status  does  not  apply  there,  territorial  waters  were  also  included  in 
operational  monitoring  with  benthic  invertebrates,  transparency,  oxygenation  and  nitrogen 

conditions being used. 

Overall,  39  %  of  lake  water  bodies,  33  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  12  %  of  coastal  water 
bodies  included  in  operational  monitoring  were  not  monitored  for  any  biological  quality 
element. 

In  terms  of  operational  monitoring,  56  %  of  coastal,  23  %  of  lakes  and  18  %  of  river  water 
bodies at less than good ecological status/potential were included: this implies that the status of 

other water bodies at less than good status/potential have been derived by other means i.e. from 
results of surveillance monitoring, by grouping or expert judgment.  

57 

 
Transboundary surface water body monitoring  

Sweden  reported  25  monitoring  sites  from  five  RBDs  that  were  part  of  an  international 

network of a sea convention.  

3.1.2  Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water bodies 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  for  the  second  RBMPs  is 
illustrated in Map 3.1. Transitional water bodies were delineated for the first RBMPs, but none 

were delineated for the second.  

Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Sweden based on the 

most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on 
WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country 
borders) 

A differentiated presentation of this 
data between ecological status and 
potential and including all types of 
quality element can be viewed here - 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

River Basin Districts 

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Overall  there  was  no  improvement  of  ecological  status/potential  since  the  first  RBMPs.  The 

majority  of  water  bodies  are  in  less  than  good  ecological  status/potential  and  the  ecological 
status/potential  has  apparently  deteriorated  in  many  rivers  and  lakes.  This  apparent 

deterioration is largely due to changes in classification methods and to the inclusion of River 
Basin Specific Pollutants in the classification.   

Figure  3.3  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  for  the  first 
RBMPs with that for the second and that expected by 2015. 

Figure 3.3  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  for  the 
second  RBMPs,  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in 

parenthesis  is  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  each  cycle.  NB  -  The 
period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  1990  to  2014. 

The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 
status/potential. The information for Sweden is shown in Figure 3.4. 

59 

 
  
 
Figure 3.4  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

water  bodies  in  Sweden.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the  number  of  water 
bodies in each category.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Overall, ecological status/potential is less than good for the majority of water bodies: 51 % of 
lakes, 68 % of rivers and 82 % of coastal waters (EEA visualisation tool for the State-of-Water 

report).  

The  proportion  of  rivers  and  lakes  in  good  or  better  ecological  status/potential  decreased 

significantly from the first to the second RBMPs: by 24 % for rivers and by 11 % for lakes. 
These  are  accompanied  with  similar  increases  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  at  less  than 

good  status/potential.  These  changes  are  mostly  reported  as  not  consistent,  but  due  to  better 
data,  knowledge  and  more  complete  assessment  methods.  In  contrast,  there  was  a  small 

increase in the proportion of coastal waters at good or better status and also an increase in less 
than  good  status/potential;  this  is  linked  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  delineated  coastal 
water  bodies  and  to  the  fact  that  the  number  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological 

status/potential was reduced from 128 in the first RBMPs to one in the second.  

60 

 
 
Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

Figure 3.5  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

water bodies in Sweden based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  assessment  has  improved  since 
the first RBMPs, especially for rivers and lakes, due to more monitoring and better assessment 

of biological quality elements. 

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 

Figure  3.6  shows  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  in  terms  of  the  biological  quality  elements 

used for classification. 

61 

 
 
 
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden.  NB  -  Water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential,  and  those  that  are  monitored  but  not  classified  or 

not applicable, are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and 
potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 

status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 
be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies 

classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. 

62 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Sweden  according  to  classified 

biological  quality  elements  in  surface  waters  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs.  The  number  in  brackets  is  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies 

classified for each biological quality element. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.8 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and 
lakes in Sweden for the second RBMPs. 

The  change  in  status/potential  at  the  quality  element  level  is  reported  as  unknown  for  most 
water  bodies  and  most  quality  elements,  and  for  the  rest,  most  quality  elements  have  no 

change, while in some water bodies the status has improved and in others it has deteriorated.  

Quality element status/potential has been classified for at least one biological quality element 

in many water bodies, including macrophytes and fish in lakes and phytobenthos and fish in in 
some river water bodies, as well as macroalgae in a few river water bodies. These biological 

quality  elements  were  mostly  missing  in  the  first  RBMPs.  Monitoring  is  the  basis  for 
classification for a large proportion of the water bodies classified for these biological quality 

elements. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  waters  in 

Sweden using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. NB  - The four types are: 
biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River  Basin 

Specific Pollutants. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements 

There  are  now  assessment  methods  developed  for  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters,  while 

macrophytes  in  rivers,  phytobenthos  in  lakes  and  macroalgae  in  coastal  waters,  which  were 
missing  for  the  first  RBMPs,  are  still  missing.  However,  the  reason  why  a  method  for 

macrophytes in rivers was not reported by Sweden is probably the very recent completion and 
intercalibration  of  the  method  in  the  Northern  Geographic  Intercalibration  Group  of  the 

Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Ecological Status. 

Although reference conditions are estimated for each water body using models, it is not clear 

how the good-moderate boundary has been set. 

Intercalibration of biological quality element methods 

It is not clear which class boundaries are used for assessment for several national lake types, as 

some  national  types  overlap  with  several  different  intercalibration  types,  e.g.  lake  type 
“S4DLNN”  overlaps  with  both  low  alkalinity  Northern  Geographic  Intercalibration  Group 

types  and  high  alkalinity  Central  Baltic  Geographic  Intercalibration  Group  types.  These 

64 

 
 
 
 
Geographic  Intercalibration  Group  types  have  very  different  intercalibrated  class  boundaries 

for good status for phytoplankton and macrophytes. 

Assessment methods for the hydromorphological quality elements 

Assessment methods for the supporting hydromorphological quality elements are reported for 

each water category but are not linked to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  assessed  in  all  water  bodies  based  on  expert 

judgement,  which  uses  models  (e.g.  S-HYPE)  and  other  information  sources,  including 
historical maps and current Geographical Information System analyses, as well as the national 

register  of  dams  and  regional  information  on  barriers  based  on  electro-fishing,  biotope 
mapping  and field  surveys of road structures. Hydromorphological  assessment methods have 

been  developed  for  coastal  waters  but  are  not  used  for  assessment  status  in  these  water 
categories because of high uncertainty and limited data availability. 

Classification methods for physicochemical quality elements  

Methods  for  assessing  acidification  status  and  nutrient  conditions  are  reported  for  rivers  but 
this  is  not  the  case  for  the  other  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements.  There  is  a  more 
complete  coverage  of  assessment  methods  for  the  relevant  quality  elements  in  lakes,  with 

assessment methods for transparency and oxygenation conditions being reported as well as for 
acidification  and  nutrients.  Methods  for  assessing  transparency,  oxygenation  conditions  and 

nutrient conditions are reported for coastal waters. Only the methods for nutrients in all water 
categories are reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

The  sensitivity  of  the  biological  quality  element  methods  to  different  impacts  have  been 
reported, but only one method (for fish in rivers) is sensitive to hydromorphological impacts. 

Type-specific  standards  are  reported  for  nutrients  for  all  types  of  water  bodies  in  all  water 
categories,  for  acidification  parameters  in  rivers  and  lakes,  for  transparency  and  oxygen  in 

lakes, transitional and coastal waters.  

The physicochemical quality element standards are set by object-specific modelling claimed to 

support  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  However,  only  the  nutrients  are  reported  to 
support the sensitive biological quality elements.27  

27 Information available through other projects indicates that the link to biological quality elements is weak also 
for nutrients. The reference conditions are modelled and the good-moderate boundary is set by multiplying the 
reference  value  by  two,  regardless  of  the  biological  quality  element  response.  For  pH,  the  good-moderate 

65 

 
                                                      
Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards 

Environmental Quality Standards have been set for 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water 

in all water categories, and for one substance (polychlorinated biphenyl) in fish and other biota. 
The RBSPs have been identified by the national WFD authorities including substances that are 

emitted  in  significant  quantities  in  Sweden,  causing  risk  of  exceeding  their  environmental 
quality  standards  and/or  negatively  affect  the  ecological  status.  For  the  second  RBMPs,  new 

methods  have  been  developed  on  how  to  identify  significant  emissions,  including  a  newly 
developed  pressure  model,  as  well  as  a  Geographical  Information  System,  and  there  is  more 

monitoring data. All pollution sources that contribute to a combined significant pressure for the 
RBSPs  in  each  sub-unit  of  the  RBDs  are  identified  from  data  found  in  national  and  local 

registers of emissions from industries, urban wastewater treatment plants, land-use (including 
agriculture and forestry), roads, urban run-off and atmospheric deposition. 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  are  reported  for  all  the  identified  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants as having been derived using the Technical Guidance Document No 2728. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9.  

boundary  is  set  by  adding  0.4  pH  units  to  the  modelled  object-specific  reference  value,  regardless  of  the 
sensitive  biological  quality  element  responses.  Research  work  is  on-going  through  a  newly  started  Nordic 
collaborative  project  to  improve  the  methods  and  ensure  better  links  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements in all water categories. 

28   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS  %20CIS-WFD  %2027 

%20EC %202011.pdf 

66 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Figure 3.9 

Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Sweden. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Expert judgment is the most significant means of classification of ecological status/potential of 

the quality elements in rivers, lakes and coastal waters in Sweden. For 91 %, 84 % and 50 % of 
water bodies which were classified in terms of individual quality elements in rivers, lakes and 

coastal waters, respectively, the basis for classification was expert judgement.  

67 

 
 
Hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  in 

WISE  as  being  solely  classified  by  expert  judgement,  even  though  hydrological  regime  was 
reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes29. In rivers and lakes, it is the hydromorphological 
quality  elements  that  have  overwhelmingly  been  used  in  the  classification  of  ecological 
status/potential.  A  total  of  14774  river  water  bodies  were  classified  using  morphological 

conditions  compared  to  2847  using  fish.  In  lakes,  7175  water  bodies  were  classified  using 
morphological  conditions,  and  the  highest  number  classified  by  a  biological  quality  element 

was  based  on  fish  (858).  This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  overall  classification  of  ecological 
status/potential of surface water bodies in Sweden is largely based on expert judgment. 

There is still only a small minority of water bodies classified for most of the biological quality 
elements  in  all  water  categories,  e.g.  for  benthic  fauna  in  rivers,  which  is  one  of  the  most 

commonly used biological  quality elements,  the proportion of water bodies classified is  only 
10 %. 

Phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates were used in the classification of coastal 
waters  with  approximately  the  same  number  classified  by  expert  judgment  and  monitoring 
results  and  a  smaller  proportion  by  grouping.  Phytoplankton,  macrophytes,  benthic 

invertebrates and fish were used to classify lakes with monitoring results being predominately 
used  in  the  classification,  with  a  smaller  proportion  being  classified  by  expert  judgment  and 

very few water bodies by grouping. Phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish were used in 
the  classification  of  rivers:  approximately  the  same  proportion  was  classified  by  monitoring 

results and expert judgement with a much smaller proportion using grouping.  

In  general  more  lakes  and  river  water  bodies  were  classified  using  physicochemical  quality 

elements than using biological quality elements, and more water bodies were classified using 
hydromorphological quality elements than physicochemical quality elements.  

Expert judgment, monitoring results and grouping are also used in classifying physicochemical 
quality elements in coastal waters. 

29 Sweden subsequently informed that hydromorphological  quality elements  were classified using official  water 
quality  criteria  based  on  GIS  and  runoff  data,  However,  expert  judgement  was  sometimes  applied  when 
overall ecological status  was  classified solely based on hydromorphological quality elements (in accordance 
with  official  Swedish  water  quality  criteria).  For  the  RBSPs,  Sweden  explained  that  for  the  individual 
pollutants, more than 50 % of the classifications were based on monitoring.  

68 

 
                                                      
Overall classification of ecological status  

Figure 3.10 shows the percentage of river and lake water bodies where no classification type 

was used. 

Figure 3.10 

The  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  where  no  biological 
quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general 
physicochemical  (PHYSCHEM)  or  no  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutant 

(RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The  one-out-all-out  principle  was  reported  as  having  been  used  in  all  RBDs,  the  details  on 
combination  rules  applied  for  the  biological  quality  elements  versus  the  supporting  quality 

elements  are  explained  in  the  RBMPs,  including  the  use  of  the  hydromorphological  quality 
elements to downgrade from good to moderate ecological status.  

3.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  A large majority of water bodies are  classified without  monitoring 
data, giving low confidence in the classification. Very few water bodies are monitored 
with biological quality elements. Sweden needs to improve its classification system for 

ecological status, since it has several gaps”.  

69 

 
 
Assessment:  The  confidence  in  classification  of  ecological  status  has  improved  for 

rivers  and  lakes  from  around  20  %  of  all  classified  water  bodies  in  medium  or  high 
confidence in the first RBMPs to around half in the second RBMPs. 

A classification method for angiosperms in coastal waters has been developed. Quality 
element  status  has  been  classified  for  at  least  one  biological  quality  element  in  many 

water  bodies,  including  macrophytes  and  fish  in  lakes  and  phytobenthos  and  fish  in 
rivers  in  some  water  bodies,  as  well  as  macroalgae  in  a  few  water  bodies.  These 

biological quality elements were mostly missing in the first RBMPs. Monitoring is the 
basis  for  classification  for  a  large  proportion  of  the  water  bodies  classified  for  these 

biological quality elements.  

All  the  three  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  now  classified  in  a  large 

majority of water bodies in rivers and lakes. 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been  included  in  monitoring  for  the  second 

RBMPs and have been used in ecological status/potential classification. In this respect 
there has been some progress. 

Compared to the situation for the first RBMPs, macrophytes are still missing in rivers, 

phytobenthos in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters, so there has been no progress 
on these elements. For the second RBMPs, nitrogen is now monitored in coastal waters, 

rivers  and  lakes,  indicating  some  progress  in  terms  of  monitoring  physicochemical 
quality elements. Compared to the first RBMPs, hydrological regime is now monitored 

in  rivers  and  lakes  but  not  in  coastal  waters,  which  also  indicates  some  progress. 
Morphological  conditions  are  still  not  monitored  in  any  water  bodies,  indicating  no 

progress with this group of quality elements.  

In  the  six  RBDs  with  comparable  information  for  both  the  first  and  second  RBMPs, 

there was an increase from 11 % of surface  water bodies being monitored for at least 
one biological quality element for the first RBMPs to 16 % for the second. 

In conclusion, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  described  monitoring  programme  is  not  designed  to  be  WFD 
compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational 
monitoring for groundwater bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored 

for  botanical  biological quality elements  and hydromorphological  quality elements  in 

70 

 
both  surveillance  and  operational  mode).  The  RBMPs  need  for  instance  to  be  more 

transparent regarding which Priority Substances are monitored. The justifications for 
not  monitoring  certain  quality  elements  are  not  adequate.  Improvement  of  the 

monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant is on-going and is planned to 
be ready by 2012.  

Assessment:  Compared  to  the  situation  for  the  first  RBMPs,  macrophytes  are  still 
missing in rivers, phytobenthos in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters, so there has 

been no progress on these elements. For the second RBMPs, nitrogen is now monitored 
in  coastal  waters,  rivers  and  lakes,  indicating  some  progress  in  terms  of  monitoring 

physicochemical quality elements. Compared to the first RBMPs, hydrological regime 
is  now  monitored  in  rivers  and  lakes  but  not  in  coastal  waters,  which  also  indicates 

some  progress.  Morphological  conditions  are  still  not  monitored  in  any  water  bodies, 
indicating no progress with this group of quality elements.  

In conclusion, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  identification  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be 
completed  in  all  RBDs,  and  made  more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how 
pollutants  were  selected,  how  and  where  they  were  monitored,  how  Environmental 

Quality  Standard  was  established,  where  there  are  exceedances  and  how  such 
exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is 

important  that  there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and 
that adequate measures are put in place.  

Assessment:  Information  was  found  in  the  RBMPs  about  how  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  have  been  identified.  Environmental  Quality  Standards  are  reported  for  26 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  water,  and  one  (non-dioxin-like  PCBs)  in  fish  and 
other  biota.  These  standards  are  the  same  for  all  RBDs,  and  are  found  in  national 

guidelines referred to in the RBMPs. The Common Implementation Strategy technical 
guidance  has  been  used  to  set  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards.  The  analytical 

methods  are  in  line  with  Article  4(1)  of  the  Quality  Assurance  /  Quality  Control 
Directive  (2009/90/EC)  for  21  substances  or  Article  4(2)  for  the  remaining  identified 
substances,  except  for  the  two  estradiols  (CAS  50-28-2  and  57-63-6)30.  All  water 
categories  are  monitored  and  exceedances  were  reported.  However,  the  status  for  the 
RBSPs  is  reported  as  unknown  in  the  large  majority  of  water  bodies.  Sweden 

30 Even if 17alpha-ethinylestradiol (CAS_57-63-6) was not monitored, information on the Environmental Quality 

Standard for this substance was reported. 

71 

 
                                                      
implements  the  one-out,  all-out  principle,  downgrading  to  moderate  status  if  one  or 

more of the River Basin Specific Pollutants exceeds their EQS values. 

On this basis, the recommendation is fulfilled. 

72 

 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 
status in surface water bodies 

4.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle  

4.1.1 

 Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status  

Member States implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance 

with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological 
status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 
the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 

monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 
resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 

required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 
from the PoM. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 
monitoring programmes in Sweden for the second RBMP. 

Figure  41  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 
lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 

for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency31. 

31 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

73 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 

comparison, ecological status, in Sweden. The number in parenthesis next to 
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

A total  of 96 % of sites are used for monitoring  the ecological  status  of rivers and 91 % for 
lakes but  only 8 % and  24 % respectively are used for the monitoring of chemical  status.  In 

coastal and territorial waters 78 % and 44 % of sites are used for ecological status with 27 % 
and 56 % respectively for chemical status. In all water categories, the proportion of monitoring 

sites  used  for  chemical  status  is  low,  in  particular  compared  to  the  proportion  of  monitoring 
sites used for ecological status.  

In the first RBMPs, transitional waters were designated and territorial waters were not. Sweden 
stated  that  the  chemical  status  of  territorial  waters  and  coastal  water  bodies  were  evaluated 

jointly,  and  the  status  was  attributed  to  the  coastal  water  bodies.  In  the  second  RBMPs, 
transitional  waters  were  no  longer  delineated  and  territorial  waters  were  monitored  and  their 

status assessed (see section 2.1.1 of this report for further details). 

Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface 

waters  for  the  second  RBMP.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 

monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. 

74 

 
 
In  all  water  categories,  almost  all  of  the  surface  water  bodies  monitored  are  monitored  for 

ecological status. The proportion monitored for chemical status is significantly lower (3 %, 8 
% and 21 % of water bodies in rivers, lakes and coastal waters respectively).  

Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored, 
monitored  for  chemical  status  and,  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 

Sweden. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of 
water bodies in that category. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

For the second RBMP, for surface waters in the selected RBDs (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Bay 
(Torne), Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs), 

there  appears  to  be  a  higher  proportion  of  sites  monitored  for  Priority  Substances  under 
surveillance  monitoring  (15  %  of  total  sites  monitored)  than  operational  monitoring  (7  %  of 

total sites monitored).  In these RBDs a third or less of the water bodies failing to achieve good 
chemical  status  (5  %  of  the  waterbodies  failing  to  achieve  good  status)  are  monitored  for 

Priority Substances as part of the operational monitoring programme.  

In comparing the number of sites and water bodies monitored between the first and the second 

RBMPs,  for  operational  monitoring  there  is  a  445  decrease  in  monitoring  sites  and  a  110 
increase  in  water  bodies.  For  surveillance  monitoring,  the  number  of  sites  has  increased  by 

2069 and the number of water bodies has increased by 1106 since the first RBMP. Information 
from one RBD is missing: Bothnian Sea (Trondelagsfylkene). Note that these numbers include 

surface  water  bodies  reported  as  being  monitored  for  chemicals  and  may  include  those 

75 

 
 
monitored  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  addition  to  those  monitored  for  Priority 

Substances.  

Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority substances in water, sediment and 
biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order 

to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 

standard.  

Spatial coverage 

With  regard  to  the  monitoring  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  in  water,  for  six  selected  RBDs 

(Bothnian  Bay,  Bothnian  Bay  (Torne),  Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea, 
Skagerrak  and  Kattegat)  more  than  66    %  of  coastal  water  bodies  are  not  monitored  for  any 

Priority  Substances  while  for  the  Bothnian  Sea  RBD  9    %  are  monitored  for  more  than  10 
Priority  Substances.  For  rivers  in  these  RBDs,  90    %  to  99    %  of  water  bodies  are  not 

monitored  for  any  Priority  Substances;  for  lakes  in  these  RBDs,  67    %  to  99      %  of  water 
bodies  are  not  monitored  for  Priority  Substances.  More  precisely,  for  the  Bothnian  Sea 

(Trondelagsfylkene),  Bothnian  Bay  (Nordland),  Bothnian  Bay  (Troms)  and  Skagerrak  and 
Kattegat  (Glomma)  RBDs,  none  of  the  lake  and  river  water  bodies  are  monitored  for  any 

Priority Substance. For the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Bay (Torne) and Bothnian Sea RBDs, over 
97  % or more territorial waters are not monitored for Priority Substances.  

Mercury, hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorobenzene are monitored in biota and sediment for 
status  assessment. Mercury is  monitored in  biota and/or sediment  at  up  to  25 sites in  coastal 

waters, up to 32 sites in lakes; up to 16 sites in rivers and up to five sites in territorial waters in 
most  RBDs.  Hexachlorobutadiene  is  monitored  at  seven  sites  in  coastal  waters  (sediment 

only), up to seven sites in lakes, up to three sites in rivers but not in territorial waters in some 
RBDs. Hexachlorobenzene is monitored at up to seven coastal and lake water sites, up to three 

river water sites and up to five sites in territorial waters in some RBDs.  

76 

 
 
Frequencies 

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 
in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 

cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 
should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 

intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 
expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies are reported for up to 37 groups of Priority Substances in water at the 
site level with frequencies ranging from 1 to 12 times per year and from at least once per cycle 

to once every 10 years. Of these groups, 28 Priority Substances are monitored at the site level 
with a frequency of 12 times per  year and these are monitored each  year in the cycle; this is 

consistent  with  the  minimum  guideline  frequencies  for  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring. 

The  monitoring  frequencies  in  biota  and/or  sediments  meet  the  recommended  minimum 
frequencies in some but not in all monitoring sites.  

Monitoring of long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3(3) of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances32  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 

unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage 

Sweden  reported  in  WISE  that  arrangements  are  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis  of 
concentrations of those Priority Substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota in 

all RBDs.  

Sweden  has  monitored  13  of  the  required  14  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota 

based on information reported for RBDs: Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Bay (Torne), Bothnian Sea, 

32Anthracene, 

brominated 

fluoranthene, 
cadmium,  C10-13 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane,  lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 
Tributyltin. 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

diphenylether, 

77 

 
                                                      
North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  (the  only  RBDs  for  which 

information is provided). The full suite of 13 substances is only monitored in sediment in the 
North Baltic Sea RBD with 3 to 12 Priority Substances monitored in the other RBDs. The full 

suite of 13 substances is only monitored in biota in the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD with the 
remainder  monitoring  seven  to  eight  substances.  Chloroalkanes  C10-13  are  not  monitored  in 

any RBD.  

However, for both sediment and biota, information reported to WISE indicated that out of the 

six  RBDs,  all  substances  were  monitored  for  status  assessment  rather  than  trend  analysis  or 
both.  This  apparently  contradictory  reporting  indicates  that  the  arrangements  for  long-term 

trend analysis are unclear.  Sweden subsequently  clarified that the data in  sediment  and biota 
are used fro trend analysis as well, but this may not have been properly reported to WISE. 

Frequencies 

Sweden did not report monitoring frequencies for sediment or biota monitoring in relation to 

trend analysis.  

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 

during  the  period  covered  by  a  RBMP  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list  pollutants  which  are 
discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) 

of the directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of 
surface  water  are  subject  Member  States  shall  monitor  for  those  quality  elements  which  are 

indicative  of  the  pressures  to  which  the  body  or  bodies  are  subject.  In  order  to  assess  the 
impact  of  these  pressures,  Member  States  shall  monitor  as  relevant  [inter  alia]:  all  priority 

substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” 

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged 
into the river basin or sub-basin.  

Only the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and 

Kattegat RBDs reported on the number of substances in the inventory, which ranged from only 
6 to 12 Priority Substances. 

Information  reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  all  Priority  Substances  in  inventories  are 
discharged  and  monitored  in  the  Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and 

78 

 
Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs. However, the Bothnian Bay RBD has a single substance that is 

discharged but is not monitored: di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The RBMPs indicate that 
all  substances  in  inventories  are  monitored.  No  information  however  on  inventories,  what  is 

discharged or what is monitored is reported for the other RBDs.   

Performance of Analytical methods used  

In  Sweden,  for  38  Priority  Substances  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC33  for  the  strictest 
standard applied. For the remaining three priority substances reported, the analytical methods 
complied  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4(2)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC  for  the 

strictest standard applied. 

The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances that are lower than the limit 

of quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC. 

4.1.2  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 
based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 
this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 

that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 
group.  For  Sweden,  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  was  undertaken  between  197534    and 
2013. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Sweden for the second RBMP is illustrated in 

Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

The chemical status of lakes and rivers in Sweden for the first and second RBMP is given in 

Table 4.1.  

33   Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the  Council,  technical specifications  for chemical analysis and  monitoring of  water status 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090  

34  Sweden subsequently informed that 1975 is a reporting error. 

79 

 
                                                      
Map 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies  in Sweden based on the most recent 
assessed status of the surface water bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(3)  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

80 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  for  the  second  and  first 

RBMP.  NB  -  1)  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number  of  water  bodies;  2)  Sweden  reported  chemical  status  in  the  second 

RBMP  based  on  the  standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  2013/39/EC 
(version in force on 13 August 2013). Sweden reported chemical status in the 

first RBMP based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC 
(version in force on 13 January 2009).  

Category  

Good 

Failing to achieve 
good 

Unknown 

Number 

  % 

Number 

  % 

Number 

  % 

Second RBMP 

Lakes (7422) 

Rivers (15072) 

Coastal (653) 

Territorial (19) 

Total (23186) 

First RBMP 

Lakes (7232) 

Rivers (15563) 

Coastal (602) 

Territorial (21) 

Total (23418) 

7422 

100 % 

15091 

99.90 % 

1 (0) 

0.01 % 

653 

19 

100 % 

100 % 

23185 

100 %  1 (0) 

0 % 

3 

0.04 % 

7229 

99.96 % 

15563 

602 

21 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

3 

0 % 

23415 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

100 % 

Sweden subsequently clarified that all surface water bodies failed to achieve good status. 

Overall between the two cycles, despite a small decrease in the number of surface water bodies 

delineated in Sweden as a whole from 23 418 to 23 186, the proportion of water bodies failing 
to achieve good chemical status has remained constant at nearly 100 % with three lake water 

bodies classified in good status in the first RBMP now failing to achieve good status and one 
river water body unknown status in the second RBMP. The chemical assessments were carried 

out  in  the  period  2008-2013  for  Bothnian  Bay,  Bothnian  Bay  (Troms),  Bothnian  Bay 
(Nordland),  Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene),  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  (Glomma)  and 
Bothnian Bay (Torne), 2005-2013 for Bothnian Sea, 19757 -2013 for North Baltic Sea, 2000-
2013 for South Baltic Sea and 19757-2014 for Skagerrak and Kattegat. 

With regards to the basis of the classification of chemical status, the majority of coastal water 
bodies are classified but not monitored for more than two thirds of all RBDs (Bothnian Bay, 

81 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Bothnian  Bay  (Torne),  Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea,  Skagerrak  and 

Kattegat) with the rest of these RBDs classified and monitored. All of the lake water bodies in 
the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North  Baltic Sea and South  Baltic Sea RBDs are  classified 

but  not  monitored,  likewise  for  greater  than  two  thirds  of  the  other  six  RBDs  while  the 
remaining proportions are classified and monitored. More than 90 % of all river water bodies 

across  the  10  RBDs  were  classified  but  not  monitored  with  the  remaining  proportions 
monitored and classified except for one river water body in the North Baltic Sea RBD. All of 

the surface water bodies in the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea and South Baltic 
Sea  RBDs  were  classified  using  expert  judgement  and  found  to  be  failing  to  achieve  good 

status.  The  vast  majority  of  surface  water  bodies  for  the  other  six  RBDs  were  classified  via 
expert  judgement,  all  of  which  again  were  found  to  be  failing  to  achieve  good  status  with 

grouping and monitoring underpinning classification for 0.3 and 4.3 % of surface water bodies 
respectively. The RBMPs indicated that the exceedance of the mercury environmental quality 

standard in biota and that for brominated diphenylethers (where monitored) were extrapolated 
to  all  surface  water  bodies  resulting  in  the  observed  assessment  of  chemical  status.  Where 
monitoring data was used, the RBMPs indicate that the one-out-all-out principle for used in the 

assessment of chemical status. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMPs. 

Overall  49  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with 
medium  confidence,  22  %  with  low  confidence  and  only  1  %  with  high  confidence.  The 

remainder (28 %) had no information.  

82 

 
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Sweden based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  RBMPs  referred  to  a  national  document  describing  a  scale  from  A-D,  where  A=  Good 
quality  and  D  =  Poor  quality  for  confidence  and  precision  of  classifications.  However,  it  is 

unclear how these classes translate into the low, medium and high confidence levels reported 
to  WISE35.  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  was  not 
reported. 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Sweden for the first RBMP 

with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 
expected by 2015. There was no change in the proportion of surface water bodies classified as 

failing to achieve good for the second RBMP compared to the first cycle with all failing and is 
consistent with expectations by the end of 2015. 

35 Sweden subsequently clarified that the methodology for classifications of confidence and precision is described 

in detail in RBMP Annex 1, p 16-20 for all RBDs. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Sweden for the second RBMP, for 

the  first RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  both  cycles.  NB  -  The  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 19757 to 2013. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards laid down in  EQS Directive 2008/105/EC  (version in  force on 13 January 200936). 
Sweden did implement the Directive in the first RBMPs and reported chemical status based on 
those standards. However, Sweden assessed chemical status in the second RBMP based on the 

standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  2013/139/EC  (version  in  force  on  13  August  2013) 
which sets more stringent environmental quality standards for seven substances37.   

Member States were requested to indicate if the new standard caused the status of the surface 
water  body  to  appear  to  deteriorate.  Sweden  reported  that  17  water  bodies  appeared  to 
deteriorate due to the more stringent standard for lead and one water body for more stringent 

36   Following Directive 2013/39/EU, which amended the Environmental Quality Standards Directive, introduced 
a  less  stringent  annual  average  Environmental  Quality  Standard  for  naphthalene  in  transitional  and  coastal 
waters. This less stringent environmental quality standard should be taken into account for the determination 
of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

37  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
standards  for  fluroanthene,  nickel  and  brominated  diphenylethers.  More  information  on  the 
chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the website of the European 
Environment Agency38. 

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 
quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 
stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). Member States were asked to report the expected 
date  for  the  achievement  of  good  chemical  status.  The  information  for  Sweden  is  shown  in 
Figure 4.5. Good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end 
of the third planning cycle for all RBDs: 98 % of surface water bodies in Sweden have already 
either  achieved  good  status  or  less  stringent  objectives  (applied  mainly  for  mercury  and  the 
brominated  diphenylethers).  The  expected  or  actual  improvement  in  the  chemical  status  of 
surface water bodies at the end of the first cycle was reported to be less than described in the 
RBMP  but  only  the  Bothnian  Bay,  Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and 
Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs have reported this information. 

38 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

85 

 
                                                      
Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 

in Sweden. The number in the parenthesis is  the number of water bodies in 
each category 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

It was reported that 22 Priority Substances are causing failure to achieve good chemical status 

in  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden.  The  “top-ten”  substances  are  shown  in  Figure  4.6.  The 
substances  causing  the  greatest  proportion  of  water  bodies  to  fail  good  chemical  status  were 

brominated  diphenylethers  (congener  numbers  28,  47,  99,  100,  153  and  154)  (100  %)  and 
mercury and its compounds (100 %).  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-ten  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status  in  surface  water  bodies  in  Sweden.  NB  -  Sweden  reported  chemical 
status in the second RBMP based on the environmental quality standards in 

the amended EQS Directive. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Overall for surface water bodies in Sweden, the largest proportion of exceedances were for the 

annual  average  -  environmental  quality  standards  for  brominated  diphenylethers  (congener 
numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) (100 %) and mercury and its compounds (100 %). 

Overall  in  Sweden  there  are  10  Priority  Substances  that  were  reported  to  have  improve  the 
water  status  from  failing  to  achieve  good  to  good  chemical  status  since  the  first  RBMP.  For 

example, improvements to chemical status of waterbodies were as a result of cadmium (0.2 % 
of total surface water bodies), lead (0.05 %), nickel (0.02 %) and nonylphenol (0.15 %).  

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive39,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances40.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 
deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member 

39 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
40 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

87 

 
 
                                                      
States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for 

these substances.  

The assessment of chemical status for the surface waters in Sweden is driven primarily by the 

exceedance  of  the  biota  environmental  quality  standard  for  mercury  and  that  for  brominated 
diphenylethers41  in  water  bodies  where  these  are  monitored  and  other  water  bodies  to  which 
this  classification  has  been  extrapolated.  Mercury  and  brominated  diphenylethers  are 
ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances.  Consequently,  the 

influence of these substances on the failure of good chemical status in Sweden is significant. 
This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency42. 

Priority substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored 

Sweden  reports  that  all  41  Priority  Substances  are  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status 

across all 10 RBDs. However, not all of these substances are monitored in each of the RBDs: 
none  of  these  substances  was  monitored  in  the  Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene),  Bothnian 

Bay (Nordland) and Bothnian Bay (Troms) RBDs, two of these substances were monitored in 
the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  (Glomma)  RBD;  nine  of  these  substances  was  monitored  in  the 
Bothnian Bay (Torne) RBD; 16 of these substances was monitored in the Bothnian Bay RBD 

with the remaining RBDs monitoring the full suite of substances in at least one surface water 
body. The reported use of more Priority Substances in the classification of chemical status than 

are  monitored  in  some  RBDs  is  consistent  with  the  reported  widespread  use  of  expert 
judgement and grouping in the assessment of chemical status. 

Application of alternative environmental quality standards for water, biota and sediment  

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  Member  States  may  opt  to  apply  environmental  quality 

standards  for  another  matrix  than  the  one  specified  in  the  directive  for  a  given  substance.  If 
they do so, they have to ensure the environmental quality standard they set in the other matrix 

(or  matrices)  offers  at  least  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  standard  established  in  the 
directive. 

41 Sweden has used the environmental quality standards in Directive 2013/39/EU for the assessment of chemical 

status in the second RBMP. 

42https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  (p40-41  of  the  report).  Also  available  in  a  more 

interactive format at :  

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SWB_F
ailing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:dis
play_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

88 

 
                                                      
While  WISE  reporting  indicated  that  for  25  of  41  Priority  Substances  the  Environmental 
Quality  Standards  laid  down  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  Directive  2008/105/EC43  for 
assessment of the chemical status of bodies of surface water had been applied and used in the 

assessment  of  chemical  status,  Sweden  later  clarified  that  those  from  the  later  version  of  the 
Directive (20132/39/EU) had been applied for 33 Priority Substances.. For the remaining eight 
Priority Substances44, Sweden reported that alternative and/or additional standards have been 
applied.  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  the  standards,  with  the  exception  of  tributyltin, 

were based on the sediment and biota standards from the environmental quality standard. For 
tributyltin,  Sweden  has  developed  a  national  standard  based  on  scientific  publications  and 
developed in line with Common Implementation Strategy guidance45.   

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 

may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 
States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 

the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones,  and  a  description  of  the 
measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated for any of the 10 RBDs in Sweden. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 
monitoring results against the environmental quality standard, to take into account: 

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 
compliance with the environmental quality standard, and; 

43   Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
European 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913  

Parliament 

Council 

and 

the 

44 Lead, cadmium, tributyltin,  anthracene and fluoranthene in sediment and chloroalkanes C10-C13, DEHP and 

of 

pentachlorobenzene in biota 

45 N° 27 - Deriving Environmental Quality Standards 

89 

 
                                                      
(b)  hardness,  pH  or  other  water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of 

metals. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

into 

consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant Environmental 
Quality Standard in all 10 RBDs of Sweden. 

No  information  for  any  of  the  RBDs  was  reported  on  the  application  of  water  quality 
parameters that affect  the bioavailability of metals  when assessing monitoring results against 

relevant Environmental Quality Standards in any of the RBDs.  

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle,  transitional  waters  were  designated  and  territorial  waters  were  not.  In  the 

second  cycle,  transitional  waters  were  no  longer  delineated  and  territorial  waters  were.  
Territorial waters were monitored for chemical  status included in the assessment of chemical 

status. 

In  comparing  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  monitored  for  operational  monitoring 

purposes  between  the  first  RBMP  and  second  RBMP  there  is  a  445  decrease  in  monitoring 
sites and a 110 increase in water bodies. Sweden subsequently clarified that only monitoring 

sites used for status assessment were included in the reporting for the second RBMP whereas 
all relevant monitoring sites were reported for the first RBMP regardless of whether they were 

used for status assessment.  When it comes to surveillance monitoring, the number of sites has 
increased  by  2  069  and  the  number  of  water  bodies  has  increased  by  1  106  since  the  first 

RBMP. Note that these numbers include surface water bodies reported as being monitored for 
chemicals and may include those monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants in addition to 

those monitored for Priority Substances. 

Sweden  has  monitored  the  majority  of  Priority  Substances  in  the  recommended  matrices  but 

not  in  all  RBDs.  A  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  are  not  monitored  with 
assessments of chemical status extrapolated from monitored water bodies. Sweden has applied 

the Environmental Quality Standards listed in Annex I of the EQS Directive (version in force 
in  2013) for 33 Priority  Substances but  is  using alternative standards for  the remaining eight 

substances.  

Overall between the two cycles, despite a small decrease in the number of surface water bodies 

delineated in Sweden as a whole from 23 418 to 23 186, the proportion of water bodies failing 

90 

 
to  achieve  good chemical  status  has remained constant at  99 % with  three lake  water bodies 

classified  in  good  status  in  the  first  RBMP  now  failing  to  achieve  good  status  in  the  second 
cycle. 

Information on Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first RBMP 
was not systematically reported making comparison with the second cycle difficult. However, 

examination  of  the  first  RBMPs  showed  that  mercury  was  causing  the  greatest  failure  in 
Sweden with 100 % of surface water bodies failing good chemical status affected. 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of  the  RBDs,  identification  of  pressures,  and  assessment  of  status,  these  need  to  be 
addressed in  the current cycle, to  ensure that adequate measures can be  put  in  place 

before the next cycle. 

  Assessment:  With  regards  to  chemical  status,  the  assessment  of  status  retains  a  high 
degree of uncertainty with  overall 49 % of surface water bodies in  Sweden classified 
with  medium  confidence,  22  %  with  low  confidence  and  only  1  %  with  high 

confidence;  the  remainder  (28  %)  had  no  information  reported.  Confidence  in  the 
classification  of  chemical  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  was  not  reported.  This 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  described  monitoring  programme  is  not  designed  to  be  WFD 
compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational 
monitoring for groundwater bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored 

for  botanical  biological  quality  elements  and  hydromorphology  quality  elements  in 
both  surveillance  and  operational  mode).  The  RBMPs  need  for  instance  to  be  more 

transparent regarding which Priority Substances are monitored. The justifications for 
not  monitoring  certain  quality  elements  are  not  adequate.  Improvement  of  the 

monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant is on-going and is planned to 
be ready by 2012.  

Assessment: With respect to chemical status in surface waters, Sweden has monitored 
the majority of Priority Substances in the recommended matrices but not in all RBDs. 

91 

 
A  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  are  not  monitored  with  assessments  of 

chemical  status  extrapolated  from  monitored  water  bodies.  Sweden  monitors  all 
Priority Substances included in inventories and discharged with the exception of DEHP 

in  the  Bothnian  Bay  RBD.  Monitoring  is  undertaken  in  all  relevant  matrices  (see 
assessment of recommendation below). Sweden has applied the Environmental Quality 

Standards  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  in  2013)  for  33 
Priority  Substances  but  is  using  alternative  standards  for  the  remaining  eight 

substances.  This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  apparent  omission  of  data  on  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  should  be  checked.  The  requirement  for  trend  monitoring  of 
several Priority Substances in sediment or biota as specified in  EQS Directive Article 

3(3) will need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.  

Assessment:  Hexachlorobenzene  is  monitored  in  sediment  and  biota  but  not  in  all 

RBDs and hexachlorobutadiene is monitored in sediment, biota and water.  For status 
assessment, these Priority Substances are monitored at up to seven monitoring sites at 

frequencies consistent with the minimum guideline in the Directive. For the assessment 
of  long-term  trends,  Sweden  reports  that  arrangements  are  in  place  for  the  long-term 

trend analysis of concentrations of those Priority Substances listed in Part A of Annex I 
of  the  EQS  Directive  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota  However,  for 

both sediment and biota, further information reported to WISE indicated that out of the 
six RBDs, 13 of the required 14 substances were monitored for status assessment rather 

than trend analysis or both. Sweden subsequently clarified that the relevant substances 
were  monitored  in  sediment  and  /or  biota  for  trend  assessment,  but  this  hasn’t  been 

properly reported to WISE.  This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

92 

 
 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of 

Topic 5
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

5.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

5.1.1  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Sweden is 3311 (Table 2.3). The vast majority, i.e. 

3249 groundwater bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1). This 
means that 98 % of groundwater bodies are not monitored. Only between 0 % and 4 % of the 
groundwater bodies in the RBDs are subject to monitoring for quantitative status46.  

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 10 % from 3023 in the first RBMP to 3311 in 

the  second  cycle  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  almost  the  same.  3002 
groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first cycle. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 38 in the first cycle to 62 in the 
second  cycle.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  groundwater  bodies  is  shown  in  Table  5.2, 
and  the  proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  monitored  for  quantitative  status  is  listed  in  Table 

5.3. This shows an increase from 79 in the first cycle to 109 in the second cycle. The number 
of monitoring sites and their purpose is listed in Table 5.2. 

1010 of 3311 groundwater bodies are identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, allocated 
in all RBDs. 

46 Sweden subsequently clarified that other sources of information other than WFD monitoring have been used in 
the  initial  risk  assessment  of  quantitative  status.  These  include  measurements/assessments  on  groundwater 
quantity  made  by  the  municipal  water  works  (water  works  posing  the  main  abstraction  pressure  in  many 
groundwater bodies). These data are not part of the WFD monitoring program and have not been reported as 
such but constitute a valuable basis for risk assessment. 

93 

 
                                                      
Table 5.1 

Number of groundwater bodies in Sweden directly monitored and the purpose of monitoring 

Total 
groundwater 
bodies directly 
monitored 
73 

19 

120 

125 

223 

180 

2 

RBD 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE5101 

CHE - Chemical 
status 

69 

19 

116 

120 

217 

179 

2 

Monitoring Purpose 

DRI – Groundwater 
abstraction site for 
human consumption 
0 

DWD - Drinking 
water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.i 
60 

OPE - 
Operational 
monitoring 
5 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 
6 

SUR - 
Surveillance 
monitoring 
69 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

87 

107 

176 

157 

1 

0 

17 

33 

81 

64 

0 

1 

9 

8 

27 

11 

0 

19 

116 

120 

217 

179 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.2 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Sweden and their purpose  

Total 
groundwater 
monitoring 
sites 
104 

25 

152 

189 

383 

313 

2 

RBD 

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE5101 

CHE - Chemical 
status 

93 

19 

136 

177 

362 

295 

2 

Monitoring Purpose 

DRI – Groundwater 
abstraction site for 
human consumption 
0 

DWD - Drinking 
water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.i 
82 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 
9 

QUA – 
Quantitative 
status 
11 

SUR – 
Surveillance 
monitoring 
93 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

97 

162 

293 

265 

1 

0 

17 

44 

190 

115 

0 

6 

16 

13 

39 

24 

0 

19 

136 

177 

362 

295 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

94 

 
  
 
Table 15.3 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Sweden monitored for quantitative status 

RBD  

SE1 

SE1TO 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE5101 

SE1103 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. groundwater 
bodies 

 % of total groundwater 
bodies monitored for 
quantitative status 

6 

1 

9 

8 

27 

11 

0 

0 

622 

74 

832 

574 

667 

539 

2 

1 

0.96 % 

1.35 % 

1.08 % 

1.39 % 

4.05 % 

2.04 % 

0.00 % 

0.00 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map 5.3 displays the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies based on 

status.  It  shows  that  3302  of  3311  groundwater  bodies  (99.7  %)  were  of  good  quantitative 
status and nine (0.3 %) are failing  good status  (Figure 5.1). In terms of area, this means that 

about  5.6  %  are  failing  good  quantitative  status.  Figure  5.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status 
classification. For 87 % of the groundwater bodies, the level of confidence in the status results 

is unknown. All  groundwater bodies have a clear status, in the  second RBMP. This situation 
improved compared to the first RBMP, in which 391 groundwater bodies (10 % in terms of the 

total groundwater body area) were of unknown status. 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  increased  from  five 

groundwater bodies in the first to nine in the second RBMP but in terms of groundwater body 
area, the situation almost remained the same with 5.4 % groundwater body area failing good 

quantitative status in the first and 5.6 % in the second RBMP. 

For all eight RBDs, water balance was assessed by using reliable information on groundwater 
levels across the groundwater body. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 

Figure 5.3. All nine groundwater bodies are failing good status due to failing the water balance 
test,  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is 
exceeding  the  available  groundwater  resource.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 

quantitative in Sweden is shown in Figure 5.4, with all groundwater bodies expected to achieve 
good status by 2021. 

95 

 
 
Map 5.3 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(2)(4). 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Figure 5.1  Quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in Sweden  for  the  second  RBMP, 

for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2013. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

96 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in Sweden based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.3  Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in Sweden 

based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

97 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 

of  groundwater  bodies  in  Sweden.  3311  groundwater  bodies  delineated  for 
second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In all eight RBDs the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been partially applied in 
accordance with WFD Article 2(27). 

With  regard  to  environmental  objectives,  only  water  balance  and  saline  intrusion  were 
considered in status assessment in all RBDs. 

In total, 63 groundwater bodies (2 %) are at risk of failing good quantitative status due to harm 
to actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater. 

5.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater associated  surface waters and  groundwater dependent  terrestrial ecosystems  are 
reported for six of eight RBDs, and there are no such ecosystems in Bothnian Bay (Nordland) 

and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  (Glomma).  They  are  not  related  to  risk  and  they  were  not 
considered  in  status  assessment.  Also  the  needs  of  the  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  not  been 

considered in any RBD. 

98 

 
 
 
5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  about  10  %  from  3023  to  3311.  3002 
groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The monitoring situation has improved. The number of monitoring sites increased as well as 
the number of monitored groundwater bodies (from 38 to 62 groundwater bodies). 

The  status  situation  did  not  change.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status 
increased  but  the  affected  groundwater  body  area  remained  almost  the  same.  Now  all 
groundwater  bodies  are  of  a  clear  status  which  is  a  significant  improvement  since  the  first 

RBMP where 391 had unknown status. 

There is a summary of changes or updates for this topic in all the RBMPs assessed. A number 

of relevant guidelines from the Swedish Geological Survey were updated in 2013 and 2014  - 
e.g. delineation of groundwater bodies, expert judgements etc. The description is found in an 

Annex to the RBMP describing the methods and work flow for the second cycle.  

5.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendations: “The described monitoring programme is not designed to be WFD 
compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational 
monitoring for groundwater bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored 

for  botanical  BQEs  and  HyMo  QEs  in  both  surveillance  and  operational  mode).  The 
RBMPs need for instance to be more transparent regarding which priority substances 

are  monitored.  The  justifications  for  not  monitoring  certain  quality  elements  are  not 
adequate. Improvement of the monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant 

is on-going and is planned to be ready by 2012.”  

  “The  knowledge  base  on  groundwater  should  significantly  be  improved  in  Sweden. 
Enhanced  and  robust  groundwater  monitoring  should  be  established  based  on  WFD 
requirements. WFD based methodologies should be used to assess groundwater status 

correctly. Water body specific measures should be considered in the PoMs.” 

  “Sweden needs to complete the initial characterisation, to enable the establishment of 
WFD compliant monitoring networks. It is important to complete this first stage of the 

99 

 
WFD  implementation  process  to  ensure  cost  effective  implementation  of  subsequent 

steps.” 

Assessment:  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  was  increased  from  79  to  109  and  the 

number of monitored groundwater bodies was increased from 38 to 62 which still only 
represents  2  %  of  all  the  groundwater  bodies.  In  two  RBDs  (with  only  one  and  two 

groundwater  bodies)  there  is  still  no  monitoring.  Therefore  this  part  of  the 
recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

The part of the recommendation concerning the status assessment methodology cannot 
be  assessed  as  not  enough  information  on  progress  regarding  this  recommendation 
could be found in the second RBMPs47. 

  Recommendation:  Article  6  Groundwater  Directive  exemptions  can  only  be  used  if 
efficient groundwater monitoring is established (Artice 6(3) Groundwater Directive). 

Assessment: Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive has not been applied in the second 

cycle in Sweden and therefore the recommendation is not applicable. 

47  Sweden  subsequently  clarified,  that  the  status  assessment  methodology  has  been  further  developed  and  the 

guidelines were published by the Swedish Geological Survey in 2014. 

100 

 
 
 
                                                      
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

Topic 6
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

6.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Sweden is 3311 (Table 2.3). In total 2589 (78 %) 

groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  5.1).  611  groundwater 
bodies (19 %) are at risk and 200 are subject to operational monitoring 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 10 % from 3023 in the first cycle to 3311 in 
the  second  RBMP  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  almost  the  same.  3002 

groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring doubled from 358 in the first 

cycle  to  722  in  the  second  cycle.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  is  listed  in  Table  3.9  and 
shows a significant increase from 456 surveillance monitoring sites in the first cycle to 1084 in 
the second RBMP. The number of operational monitoring sites has been increased significantly 

since the first RBMP, from 15 to 375. 

Not all substances  causing  risk of deterioration in chemical  status  are subject  to  surveillance 

monitoring. Except for dissolved oxygen and pH, all remaining WFD core parameters (nitrate, 
ammonium  and  electrical  conductivity)  are  monitored.48  In  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat 
(Glomma) RBD, conductivity is also not monitored. 

6.1.2  Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 
assessed status. It shows that 3235 of 3311 groundwater bodies (98 %) were of good chemical 

status, and the remaining 76 groundwater bodies (2 %) are failing good status. In terms of area, 
this means that about 6 % are failing good chemical status. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in 

status classifications which is quite low or even unknown for the majority of the groundwater 
body  areas.  All  groundwater  bodies  had,  and  still  have  a  clear  status,  in  the  first  and  in  the 

second RBMP.  

48  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  there  might  have  been  a  reporting  error  as  pH  for  example  is  regularly 

monitored. 

101 

 
                                                      
Map 6.1  Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Sweden  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(4)(5). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

102 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Sweden  for  the  second  RBMP, 
for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is 
the number  of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period  of the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2004 to 2014. The year of 
the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of  groundwater bodies 
in Sweden based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status increased since the first 
RBMP from 60 (2 %) to 76 (2 %) groundwater bodies (Figure 25) (reduction from 6.4 % to 6.1 

% of the total groundwater body area). But also groundwater bodies in good status increased 

103 

 
 
 
 
from 2963 in the first cycle to 3235 in the second RBMP. The expected date of achievement of 

good chemical status in Sweden is shown in Figure 5.4. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 

6.3.  For  76  groundwater  bodies,  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 
groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 

environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 
the ability to support human uses. Eight  groundwater bodies are failing good chemical status 

due to saline or other intrusion. Figure 6.4 shows the top 10 pollutants causing failure of status 
and the pollutants causing a sustained upward trend. 

Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Sweden  for  the  most  recent 
assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

104 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4 

Top 10 groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 

Sweden 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

In all RBDs, the calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a 
groundwater threshold value is based on the groundwater body area.  

Groundwater threshold values have been established for all pollutants or indicators of pollution 
causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status.  The  list  of  groundwater  threshold  values 
shows  that  the  Groundwater  Directive49  Annex  II  substances  have  been  considered.  In  all 
RBDs,  natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold  value 

establishment.  

A trend and trend reversal methodology is available and assessments have been performed in 

all RBDs. 

6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater associated  surface waters and  groundwater dependent  terrestrial ecosystems  are 

reported for six of eight RBDs, there are no such ecosystems in Bothnian Bay (Nordland) and 

49   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

deterioration 

and 

groundwater 

of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

pollution 

against 

105 

 
 
 
                                                      
the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  (Glomma)  RBD.  They  are  not  related  to  risk  and  they  were  not 

considered in status assessment.  

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 

have not been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. They are not 
related  to  risk.  Figure  6.5  shows  the  seven  pollutants  with  upward  trends  in  groundwater 

bodies  in  Sweden.  Figure  6.6  shows  the  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing 
good chemical status and good quantitative status. 

Figure 6.5 

Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Sweden 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in Sweden at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 10 % from 3023 in the first cycle to 3311 in 
the  second  RBMP  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  almost  the  same.  3002 

groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The monitoring situation has improved. The number of monitored groundwater bodies as well 

as  the  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  doubled  and  the  operational  monitoring  sites 
increased by 25 times. 

There  have  been  minor  changes  in  the  status  situation.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies 
failing  good  status  increased  but  the  affected  groundwater  body  area  was  slightly  reduced, 

from 6.4 % to 6.1 % of the total groundwater body area. 

There is a summary of changes or updates for this topic in all the RBMPs assessed. A number 
of relevant guidelines from the Swedish Geological Survey were updated in 2013 and 2014  - 

e.g.  delineation  of  groundwater  bodies,  threshold  values,  expert  judgements  etc.  The 
description is found in an Annex to the RBMP describing the methods and work flow for the 

second cycle. 

107 

 
 
6.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  The  described  monitoring  programme  is  not  designed  to  be  WFD 
compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational 
monitoring for groundwater bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored 

for  botanical  biological  quality  elements  and  hydromorphology  quality  elements  in 
both  surveillance  and  operational  mode).  The  RBMPs  need  for  instance  to  be  more 
transparent regarding which Priority Substances are monitored. The justifications for 

not  monitoring  certain  quality  elements  are  not  adequate.  Improvement  of  the 
monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant is on-going and is planned to 

be ready by 2012. 

Assessment: For the aspect  of this recommendation relevant  to  the chemical  status  of 

groundwaters, the number of surveillance monitored groundwater bodies as well as the 
number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  doubled.  The  number  of  operational 

monitoring  sites  increased  by  25  times  and  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with 
operational  monitoring  increased  from  13  to  200.  Therefore  the  part  of  the 

recommendation  concerning  the  improvement  of  groundwater  monitoring  is  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  knowledge  base  on  groundwater  should  be  significantly 
improved  in  Sweden.  Enhanced  and  robust  groundwater  monitoring  should  be 
established based on WFD requirements. WFD based methodologies should be used to 
assess groundwater status correctly. 

Assessment:  Surveillance  monitoring  is  established  in  seven  of  eight  RBDs  (not  in 
Bothnian  Bay  (Nordland)  with  one  groundwater  body)  and  operational  monitoring  is 

established  in  all  five  RBDs  where  groundwater  bodies  are  identified  at  risk. 
Substances causing risk were identified and are covered by operational monitoring, but 

not  completely.  This  part  of  the  recommendation  concerning  enhanced  monitoring  is 
largely fulfilled. 

The part of the recommendation concerning the status assessment methodology cannot 
be fully assessed. A number of relevant guidelines from the Swedish Geological Survey 

were  updated  in  2013  and  2014  -  e.g.  delineation  of  groundwater  bodies,  threshold 

108 

 
values,  expert  judgements  etc.  These  have  not  been  assessed  in  detail;  however,  for 

example, at least groundwater associated aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems,  which  exist,  were  neither  considered  in  status  assessment  nor  in  the 

establishment  of  groundwater  threshold  values;  but  there  is  no  related  risk.  Therefore 
not enough information on progress regarding this part of the recommendation could be 

found in the second RBMPs.  

The  part  of  the  recommendation  concerning  the  trend  assessment  methodology  is 

fulfilled. Trend and trend reversal methodologies are available in all eight RBDs. 

  Recommendation:  Article  6  Groundwater  Directive  exemptions  can  only  be  used  if 
efficient groundwater monitoring is established (Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive). 

Assessment:  Article  6  of  the  Groundwater  Directive50  has  not  been  applied  in  the 
second RBMP. Therefore this recommendation is fulfilled. 

50   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 

of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

109 

 
 
                                                      
 
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Topic 7
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle for designation 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

7.1.1  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In the second cycle, heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are designated in 

five  RBDs  (Bothnian  Bay,  Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea,  Skagerrak  and 
Kattegat.  

The  WFD  requires  a  review  of  designation  every  six  years.  As  noted  further  below  in  this 
chapter, there have been modifications in the extent of designation of water bodies as heavily 

modified in several RBDs since the first RBMPs. However, Sweden subsequently clarified that 
the number of heavily modified water bodies has not changed, but that two designated water 

bodies  have  changed  their  identification  in  this  second  cycle  (amended  to  the  Norwegian 
identification). In the first RBMPs, four heavily modified water bodies were designated in the 
Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene)  RBD  but  these  have  been  de-designated  in  the  second 

RBMP.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene)  RBD,  there  were  no 
heavily  modified  water  body  designations  in  the  first  RBMP  but  there  are  four  heavily 

modified  water  body  designations  in  the  second  RBMP.  .  However,  Sweden  subsequently 
clarified  that  the  number  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  has  not  changed,  but  that  two 

designated water bodies have changed their identification in this second cycle (amended to the 
Norwegian identification). 

In  the  Bothnian  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs,  the  change  in  the  number  of  river 
heavily modified water bodies is significant, increasing from 243 to 249 river heavily modified 

water bodies in Bothnian Sea and decreasing from 51 to 40 river heavily modified water bodies 
in  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD.  In  the  same  two  RBDs,  there  are  also  changes  in  the 

numbers  of  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  the  Bothnian  Sea  RBD,  lake  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  increased  from  119  to  167  and,  in  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD, 

lake heavily modified water bodies decreased from 41 to 12. 

110 

 
 
Figure 7.1 shows the proportion of total water bodies in each category in Sweden that has been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial. 

Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Sweden that has been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

All of the coastal and transitional heavily modified water bodies designated in the first RBMP 
have been de-designated in the second RBMP. 

No major changes are noted for artificial water bodies. 

Several  of the designated heavily modified water bodies are reservoirs.  120 water bodies are 
reservoirs  which  were  originally  rivers;  52  of  these  are  designated  as  river  heavily  modified 

water  bodies  and  68  are  designated  as  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  According  to 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  on  this  issue,  reservoirs  which  were  originally 

rivers should all be designated as river heavily modified water bodies. There are also 107 water 
bodies  which  are  reservoirs  and  were  originally  lakes.  These  are  all  designated  as  heavily 

modified water body lakes except  one which is  designated as a  river heavily modified water 
body. 

The main water use for which river and lake water bodies are designated as heavily modified 
water bodies is hydropower. The main physical alterations of river and lake heavily modified 

water bodies are weirs/dams/reservoirs. 

111 

 
 
Two new guidelines for the designation of heavily modified water bodies have been developed 

since  the  first  RBMPs:  a  general  guideline  and  one  specific  to  hydropower.  It  is  noted  that 
these  will  be  supplemented  with  more  detailed  guidance  for  other  various  activities  that  can 

lead to a water body being designated as heavily modified. The methodology addresses criteria 
for the identification of substantial change in character, the assessment of significant adverse 

effect  on  the  use  and  explanations  of  how  WFD  Article  4(3)(b)  has  been  applied  (better 
environmental option). 

Concerning  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects,  the  guideline  notes  that  different 
forms  of  data  should  be  used  to  demonstrate  whether  measures  have  a  significant  negative 

effect  on  activities  beyond  natural  variation.  Furthermore,  there  will  be  in  the  future  sector-
specific guidelines for heavily modified water bodies specifying the benefits of different water 

uses and giving further guidance on how different measures can affect these. 

The  reason  for  the  designation  of  most  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  Sweden  is 

hydropower production (in particular large-scale hydropower over 10 megawatts). In all cases 
of heavily modified water body designation, it has been deemed very difficult to achieve good 
ecological status unless the activities are significantly affected. The lack of designations due to 

other  uses  is  related  to  the  lack  of  national  guidance  on  how  water  bodies  affected  by  other 
water uses should be assessed from a heavily modified water body perspective. 

7.1.2  Definition of good ecological  potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial  Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  at  water  body  level,  following  the  Prague 
approach (based on the identification of mitigation measures).  

Good ecological potential is reported as not defined in terms of biology, but other information 
reported  in  WISE  indicates  that  biological  values  have  been  derived  for  fish  to  define 

maximum  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential.  In  addition,  a  comparison 
between good ecological potential and good ecological status has been made, according to the 

WISE reporting. 

Information  in  the  RBMPs  and  background  documents  outline  that  the  first  step  for  the 

definition  of  good  ecological  potential  is  the  definition  of  maximum  ecological  potential  for 
biological quality elements. For the selection of relevant quality elements, a distinction is made 

between  most  similar  category  (river,  lake,  transition  zone,  or  coastal  waters)  and  similar 
hydomophology  type  for  the  water  body.  Overall,  based  on  the  information  found,  it  is 

concluded that good ecological potential definition in terms of biology is foreseen in theory in 

112 

 
the  relevant  guidelines,  but  it  has  not  been  done  yet  in  practice  (as  the  measures  for  heavily 

modified water bodies have not been defined yet but will be in 2018). It is also indicated that 
additional  guidelines  will  be  developed  in  the  future  on  the  definition  of  maximum,  good, 

moderate and poor ecological potential.  

Biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological 

changes  are  reported  only  for  rivers  for  the  biological  quality  element  fish.  No  sensitive 
methods are reported for lakes, coastal and transitional waters. 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for five out of 
the six RBDs for  which  heavily modified water  bodies and  artificial water bodies have been 

reported  (no  mitigation  measures  are  reported  for  Bothnian  Sea  (Trondelagsfylkene)). 
However, the RBMPs do not include a description of the ecological changes expected from the 

mitigation measures. At the same time, the programmes of measures contain no measures for 
water  bodies  classified  as  heavily  modified  water  bodies  or  artificial  water  bodies  for 

hydropower and the RBMPs indicate to future work planned within 2018 to define mitigation 
measures for good ecological potential.  

The water authorities (in all districts) have started a project in 2016 in order to develop river 

basin-based  plans  of  measures  which  would  be  used  to  identify  the  measures  that  are 
reasonable  for  achieving  good  ecological  potential  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and 

artificial water bodies related to hydropower. These plans of mitigation measures would form 
the  basis  for  decisions  on  environmental  quality  standards  (good  ecological  potential)  for 

heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  with  regard  to  hydropower,  which 
were planned for December 2018. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As described above, there have been modifications in the extent of designation of water bodies 

as heavily modified in several RBDs since the first RBMPs. The changes in the designation of 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  mainly  related  to  new  assessments  following  the  new 

guidelines for heavily modified water bodies. A further review of whether there are more water 
bodies with conditions relevant for extended deadlines, less stringent objectives or designating 

them as artificial water bodies /heavily modified water bodies (e.g. for water bodies affected by 
small-scale hydropower) will be carried out in the near future. 

Coastal  water  bodies  have  been  reclassified  from  heavily  modified  water  bodies  to  natural 
water  bodies  based  on  the  new  guidance  on  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  Less  stringent 

113 

 
objectives  for  the  hydromorpological  quality  elements  have  been  applied  instead  for  these 

water  bodies  that  were  previously  designated  as  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  The 
transitional  water  bodies,  previously  designated  as  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  have  also 

been  reclassified  as  coastal  waters,  as  it  is  not  possible  to  distinctively  separate  them  from 
nearby coastal waters. 

As  noted  above,  there  have  been  methodological  developments  since  the  first  RBMPs,  with 
two guidelines developed in 2015 and 2016 for heavily modified water bodies in general and 

one  specific  to  hydropower.  However  it  is  not  specifically  discussed  how  the  methodology 
differs from the first RBMPs. 

Concerning the definition of good ecological potential, it is not clear if specific improvements 
took place compared to the approach in the first cycle but there are several references to work 

scheduled  by  2018  to  complete  the  classification  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies/  artificial 
water bodies. 

7.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  The  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  should  comply 
with  all  the  requirements  of  Article  4(3).  The  procedure  for  designation  of  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  has  not  been  followed.  Water  bodies  exposed  to  major 

hydromorphology  pressures  like  large  hydro  power  installations  and  harbours  have 
been  designated  as  heavily  modified  water  bodies/  artificial  water  bodies,  whereas 

water bodies exposed to other hydromorphology pressures have only been designated 
as  candidates  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies/  artificial  water  bodies.  The 

designations  of  the  latter  will  be  decided  for  the  next  planning  cycle.  The  heavily 
modified  water  body  designation  process  therefore  needs  to  be  completed  before  the 
next cycle. The assessment of significant adverse effects to the environment and the lack 
of  significantly  better  environmental  options  should  be  specifically  mentioned  in  the 

RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  reason  for  the  designation  of  most  heavily 

modified  water  bodies  in  Sweden  is  still  hydropower  production  (in  particular  large-
scale  hydropower  over  10  megawatts).  The  lack  of  designations  due  to  other  uses  is 

related  to  the  lack  of  national  guidance  on  how  water  bodies  affected  by  other  water 

114 

 
uses  should  be  assessed  from  a  heavily  modified  water  bodies-perspective.  It  is, 

however, mentioned that guidelines for the designation due to other water uses will be 
developed in the future. Two new guidelines developed since the first RBMPs address 

heavily modified water bodies in general and hydropower in specific. These guidelines 
address criteria for the identification of substantial change in character, the assessment 

of significant adverse effect on the use and explanations of how WFD Article 4(3)(b) 
has been applied (better environmental option). 

Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Measures for defining good ecological potential has furthermore not 
been  defined  for  each  individual  heavily  modified  water  bodies/AW  -  only  general 
descriptions are provided of the possible measures. 

Assessment:  Work  to  define  good  ecological  potential  is  still  on-going;  therefore  this 
recommendation has not been fulfilled yet. The water authorities (in all districts) have 
started a project in 2016 in order to develop river basin based plans of measures which 
would  be  used  to  identify  the  measures  that  are  reasonable  for  achieving  good 
ecological  potential  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies 
related  to  hydropower.  These  plans  of  mitigation  measures  would  form  the  basis  for 
decisions  on  environmental  quality  standards  (good  ecological  potential)  for  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  with  regard  to  hydropower,  which 
were planned for December 2018. 

115 

 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

8.1.1  Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 

objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical  status  by  201551),  groundwater  bodies  (good  chemical  and  quantitative  status  by 
2015)  and  for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by 
2015 unless otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface water and quantitative 
and chemical status in groundwater have been reported in all RBDS. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Sweden are provided 
elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 

status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 
chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 

associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For  the  second  cycle  plans,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  date  when  they  expect 

each  surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised  for  Sweden  elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

waters  (Chapter  3);  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

8.1.2  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. Figure 

8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 

51 For priority substances newly introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached by 2027, and 
for  the  2008  priority  substances,  for  which  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  revised  by  Directive 
2013/39/EU, good status should be reached in 2021. 

116 

 
                                                      
and  the  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  Sweden  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 

objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Sweden expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and 

use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = 
Surface  water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative 

status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 

objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 
deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 

modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 
include the provisions in Article 4(4)  - extension of deadline, Article 4(5) - lower objectives, 

Article  4(6)  -  temporary  deterioration  and  Article  4(7)  new  modifications  /  new  sustainable 
human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate 

cost, technical feasibility or natural conditions, and for Article 4(5) by disproportionate cost or 
technical feasibility. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 
reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Sweden. 

117 

 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 

the  second  RBMP  in  Sweden.  NB  -  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 

Chemical  exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each 
pollutant  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters 

for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Application of Article 4(4) 

In the first cycle, according to the WISE reporting, all exemptions related to Article 4(4) were 
justified by technical feasibility except exemptions related to chemical status for groundwater 

118 

 
 
bodies,  where  also  natural  conditions  are  stated  as  a  reason.  In  the  second  cycle  for  surface 

water  justifications  are  based  on  technical  feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  and  natural 
conditions. Also, for groundwater, the situation has changed and Article 4(4) is applied in the 

Bothnian  Sea,  North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs  with 
technical  feasibility  as  justification.  Natural  conditions  are  no  longer  used.  Exemptions  are 

applied on the water body level. 

The  section  in  the  RBMPs  on  exemptions  points  to  the  Swedish  WISE  (VISS)  providing 

details on the use of justifications for exemptions and their type (e.g. technical feasibility) on 
the water body level.  

Sweden  has  developed  a  national  guidance  on  exemptions  in  the  second cycle.  The  Swedish 
Guidance document is based on the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document on 
Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives52 with subsequent revisions and updates. 

The  national  guidance  document  on  “extended  deadlines  and  less  stringent  requirements  - 

exemptions for achieving a good status / potential by 2015" provides quite specific guidance 
on a principle level also for exemptions due to technical feasibility. The justifications used for 
technical feasibility relate to:  

  The cause of the negative effects is unknown; 

  There are practical limitations of administrative nature; 

  No known technical solution exists; or, 

  The problem cannot be solved because of the lack of action in other countries. 

Disproportionate  costs  for  groundwater  are  justified  by  Cost-Effectiveness  Analysis  in  all 
RBDs  and  for  surface  water  the  justification  methods  include:  Cost-Benefit  Analysis,  Cost-

Effectiveness  Analysis,  social  and  sectoral  impacts  and  other  reasons.  The  national  guidance 
document "on extended deadlines and less stringent requirements - exemptions for achieving a 

good status / potential by 2015" provides quite specific guidance on a principle level in relation 
to  disproportionate costs53. Yet,  the Swedish  RBMPs on the water body level  lack economic 
data on costs and benefits of measures proposed. However, Sweden subsequently clarified that 
the costs and benefits are calculated at water body level. 

52https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2a3ec00a-d0e6-405f-bf66-

60e212555db1/Guidance_documentN%C2%B020_Mars09.pdf  

https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.549ab516149e19df88fc2e0d/1418917813322/rapport-2014-12-

53 

vagledning-vattenforvaltning.pdf  

119 

 
                                                      
The  justifications  provided  for  disproportionate  costs,  for  both  Article  4(4)  and  4(5),  are 

textual/qualitative  and  often  rather  vague  and  thus  difficult  to  assess.  The  Preface  to  the 
Guidance  states  that  questions  about  the  economic  analysis,  including  the  application  of 

disproportionate  costs  have  been  dealt  with  at  an  overall  level  and  the  responsible  authority 
will need to return with more precise guidance on this. 

The  national  guidance  document  provides  also  guidance  on  a  principle  level  also  for 
exemptions  due  to  natural  conditions.  Exemptions  due  to  natural  conditions  are  aimed  at  the 

conditions that determine the rate of natural recovery. The delay may be due to the time it takes 
recolonise  and  establish  after  physico-chemical  and 
for  plants  and  animals 

to 

hydromorphological conditions have been restored to states consistent with good status. Delay 
can  also  be  due  to  the  time  it  takes  for  the  environment  to  stabilise  after  implementation  of 

measures.  

Climate change is used in the justifications as a factor that can affect the natural conditions for 

recovery  and  thus  the  recovery  time.  Regarding  acidification,  there  is  a  natural  recovery 
process  which  limits  the  ability  to  achieve  good  status  within  a  certain  period  of  time.  This 
applies to both the water being limed and those not being limed. 

For each water body, there is an assessment on the main impact/drivers justifying exemptions. 
This is provided in the VISS Water Info System and applies to all RBMPs.  

The  drivers  behind  the  Article  4(4)  exemptions  in  surface  water  in  all  RBDs  are  urban 
development, transport, industry, forestry, flood protection, energy - hydro power, agriculture 

and  unknown/other  sectors.  In  the  case  of  groundwater,  it  is  agriculture,  urban  development, 
transport and industry. The impacts causing exemptions in surface water are nutrient pollution, 

altered  habitats,  acidification,  chemical  pollution  and  other  significant  impacts.  For 
groundwater,  the  impacts  in  all  RBDs  are  saline  pollution/intrusion,  alterations  in  flow 

directions resulting in saltwater intrusion, abstraction exceeds available groundwater resource 
(lowering water table) and chemical pollution. 

The pressures responsible for exemptions to surface water are diffuse and point pollution and 
various hydromorphological pressures (dams, barriers, etc) in all RBDs. The Bothnian Bay and 

Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD  also  report  introduced  species  and  diseases.  For  groundwater, 
point and diffuse pollution as well as abstraction are reported as key pressures responsible for 

exemptions. 

120 

 
Table 8.1 shows the pressures responsible for exemptions in relation to Priority Substances in 

surface waters  and  Table 8.2 shows the pressures responsible for exemptions in  groundwater 
bodies in relation to good chemical status. 

The impacts causing these exemptions are chemical pollution in surface water and groundwater 
and altered habitats due to morphological changes in surface water. 

121 

 
Table 8.1 

Pressures on surface water bodies responsible for Priority Substances in Sweden failing to achieve good chemical 
status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban wastewater 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.3 - Diffuse - Forestry 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

Number of 
failing 
Priority 
Substances 

40 

107 

55 

27 

67 

60 

30 

38 

35 

123 

154 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility  

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Article 4(4) – 
Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility54 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

57 

163 

124 

17 

116 

151 

43 

70 

357 

415 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

348 

0 

14 

388 

0 

3 

5594 

0 

854 

46298 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

54 Sweden subsequently clarified that this was a reporting error, as Article 4(5) exemptions were not applied. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Sweden  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for 
which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on groundwater 

Number of failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) – Disproportionate 
cost 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply 

3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other 

12 

9 

10 

3 

2 

5 

1 

2 

2 

3 

47 

11 

24 

13 

16 

32 

1 

4 

4 

9 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

1 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

In  the  first  cycle,  Sweden  reported  that  100  %  of  surface  water  bodies  are  subject  to  Article 

4(5)  exemptions  due  to  pollution  by  mercury.  This  has  not  changed  in  the  second  cycle  and 
again  Article  4(5)  has  been  applied  to  all  surface  water  bodies.  Article  4(5)  is  justified  by 

technical  infeasibility  and  disproportionate  costs.  The  justifications  behind  Article 4(5)  are 
technical infeasibility in the Bothnian Sea, Bothnian Bay, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea, 

Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs  and  in  the  Bothnian  Sea  RBD  disproportionate  costs  are  also 
cited. Natural conditions are no longer used as a justification in relation to Article 4(5).  

The  drivers  behind  Article  4(5)  exemptions  in  surface  water  are  in  all  RBDs:  transport, 
contaminated  sites  and  atmospheric  deposition.  For  groundwater  the  main  driver  is  industry. 

The  main  impacts  are  chemical  pollution  in  surface  waters  and  groundwater  and  altered 
habitats in surface waters. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) has not been applied in any of the RBDs.  

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article  4(7)  has  not  been  reported  to  be  applied  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  Neither  the  national 
guidance,  nor  a  respective  section  of  the  RBMP  is  addressing  Article  4(7)  exemptions. 

However,  the  RBMPs  of  all  basin  include  an  explanation  on  why  exemptions  under 
Article 4(7) were not needed to be applied in this cycle. 

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive55 have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle,  Sweden  reported  that  100  %  of  surface  water  bodies  are  subject  to  Article 
4(5) exemptions due to pollution by mercury (lower environmental objectives). In the second 

cycle, Article 4(5) on surface water chemical status is again applied for all water bodies. 

In the first cycle according to the WISE report, all exemptions related to Article 4(4) are due to 

technical feasibility except from exemptions related to chemical status for groundwater bodies, 
where also natural conditions are stated as a reason. In the second cycle, for surface waters the 

55   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

deterioration 

groundwater 

and 
of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711  

pollution 

against 

124 

 
                                                      
arguments  have  been  extended  and  technical  feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  and  natural 

conditions  are  used  as  justifications.  Also,  for  groundwater,  the  situation  has  changed  and 
Article 4(4) is applied in the Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak 

and Kattegat RBDs with the argument of technical feasibility. Natural conditions are no longer 
used. 

Sweden has developed a national guidance on exemptions prepared by the Swedish Agency for 
Marine and Water Management in 2014. 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  PoM  reports  requested 
action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  A  significant  number  of  exemptions  have  been  applied  in  this  first 
cycle  of  RBMPs.  Environmental  objectives  are  set  for  all  water  bodies,  but  time 
exemptions are applied for  almost all water bodies at  risk, indicating a low  ambition 

level  to  meet  the  WFD  good  status  environmental  objective,  although  for  chemical 
status the exemptions are due to long-range mercury pollution that takes a long time to 

change.  The  high  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMPs  is  a  cause  of 
concern.  Sweden  should  take  all  necessary  measures  to  bring  down  the  number  of 

exemptions 
the 
including 
characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well 

the  next  cycle, 

improvements 

the  needed 

for 

in 

as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties. 

Assessment: The justification of exemptions is now better detailed and on a water body 
level.  As  in  the  first  cycle,  all  surface  water  bodies  are  subject  to  Article  4(5)  for 

chemical status. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Where  Article  4(5) 

is  used, 

that 

is  setting 

less  stringent 

environmental objectives, such other objectives need to  be transparently  applied, and 

they  need  to  go  beyond  repeating  other  already  binding  requirements  such  as  no 
further deterioration. 

Assessment:  Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  in  surface 
water  and  chemical  and  quantitative  status  in  groundwater  have  been  reported  in  all 

RBDs.  In  the  second  cycle  still  nearly  all  surface  water  bodies  are  subject  to  Article 
4(5)  exemptions  for  chemical  status.  Exemptions  are  provided  on  water  body  level. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

125 

 
  Recommendation:  The  use  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  should  be  based  on  a 
thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  by  the  WFD,  in  particular  an 
assessment  of  whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the 

benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence 
of  alternatives  that  would  be  a  better  environmental  option.  Furthermore,  these 

projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the 
adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 

4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the 
project planning as possible. 

Assessment:  The  application  of  Article  4(7)  is  not  reported.  Sweden  subsequently 
clarified  that  this  was  not  applied  in  the  second  cycle.  Further  information  would  be 

needed to assess whether the recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Provide  in  RBMPs  (in  relation  to  exemptions  under  Article  4.4  - 
calculation  of  disproportionate  cost  and  the  definition  of  technical  unfeasibility) 
additional  clarification  and  examples  of  unclear  sources  of  pollution  and  diffuse 

leakages, as well as measures for nutrient pollution, which should be implemented as 
soon as possible. 

Assessment: This recommendation is assessed in Chapter 12. 

  Recommendation:  Also  Sweden  should  ensure  better  justification  and  application  of 

exemptions, including linking water and nature legislation. 

Assessment: The justifications for Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions have been updated 

and  are  more  detailed  in  the  second  cycle  following  the  elaboration  of  a  national 
guidance.  However,  the  use  of  justifications  for  disproportional  costs  is  hampered  by 

the  lack  of  cost  information  in  some  cases.  Links  to  nature  legislation  have  been 
developed in the guidance. This recommendation has been partly fulfilled.  

126 

 
 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of Measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by Member States; more 

specific information on measures relating to specific pressures (for example arising from 
agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The Key Types of Measure (KTM) referred to in this section are groups of measures identified 

by Member States in the PoM, which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual 
measures included in the Programme of Measure (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into 

KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one 
KTM because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely 

independent silos. KTMs have been introduced to simplify the reporting of measures and to 
reduce the very large number of Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States 

(WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A KTM may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one national 

measure. The 25 predefined KTMs are listed in the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The KTMs should be fully implemented and made operational within the RBMP planning 

period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve the environmental 
objectives. 

9.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

9.1.1  General issues 

An indication or whether or not measures have been made operational is when they have been 
reported  as  being  planned  to  tackle  significant  pressures  (Key  Types  of  Measure  level). 

Significant pressures are also reported at the water body level. It would be expected that there 
would be measures planned to tackle all significant pressures. However, in Sweden, many of 
the reported significant pressures are not covered with operational KTMs. For example, for the 
Bothnian  Bay  RBD,  there  are  no  operational  KTMs  for  point  source  pressures  from 
contaminated  sites  and  others  sources  on  groundwater  and  none  for  diffuse  source  pressures 

from  transport  on  groundwater.  However,  KTMs  are  reported  for  unreported  pressures  on 
groundwater, i.e. point source Industrial Emissions Directive plants, diffuse source - other, and 

anthropogenic  -  unknown.  Similarly  for  surface  water,  there  are  no  KTMs  reported  for  the 
significant  pressures  causing  failures  of  good  status  for  point  source  -  non-  Industrial 

Emissions Directive plants, diffuse sources - urban, transport, and contaminated sites, physical 

127 

 
alterations 

-  navigation 

and 

shoreline,  hydrological 

alterations 

-  hydropower, 

hydromorphological alterations - loss of water body and other, and anthropogenic - unknown. 
KTMs  for  pressures  that  are  not  reported  to  be  causing  surface  waters  for  failure  to  achieve 

good  status  include  point  source  -  contaminated  sites,  physical  alterations  -  unknown  or 
obsolete,  and  anthropogenic  -  other.  Significant  other  pressures  from  drainage  are  also 

indicated but no KTM is in place to address them. A similar situation can be seen in the North 
Baltic  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs  where,  for  groundwater,  there  are  no  KTMs, 

among  others,  for  diffuse  pressures  from  urban  run-off,  agriculture  and  transport,  or  for 
abstractions for public water supply and others. For surface waters in these RBDs, not all point 

source  pressures  or  diffuse  pressures  are  covered,  notably  there  are  no  KTMs  for  diffuse 
pressures from urban run-off, transport, contaminated sites and others in  both  RBDs, nor are 

there  any  KTMs  for  physical  alterations  -  agriculture  and  shores,  hydrological  alterations  - 
hydropower  and  others,  and  hydromorphological  alterations.  One  significant  other  pressure, 

recreation,  is  included  as  a  significant  pressure  in  RBD  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat,  but  no 
operational KTM seems to be linked with this. 

National  basic  measures  (52)  and  national  supplementary  measures  (45)  have  been  mapped 

against  14  of  the  25  pre-defined  KTMs.  All  measures  apply  in  all  RBDs.  Of  these:  19  %  of 
national basic measures and 16 % of the national supplementary measures have been mapped 

against  KTM21  –“Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 
transport  and  built  infrastructure”;  13  %  of  the  national  basic  measures  have  been  mapped 

against KTM5 –“Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing 
old dams)” with a further 13 % mapped against KTM7 –“Improvements in flow regime and/or 

establishment  of  ecological  flows”;  13  %  of  the  national  supplementary  measures  have  been 
mapped against KTM6 –“Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than 

longitudinal continuity”, and a further 13 % have been mapped against KTM25 –“Measures to 
counteract  acidification”.  Basic  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTMs  for  which  no 

operational  measures  have  been  reported,  for  example  KTM13  –“Drinking  water  protection 
measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)” and KTM25 –“Measures to 

counteract  acidification”.  None  of 
implement 
Articles 11(3)(b),  (f)  or  (k).  Links  to  further  information  on  Article  11(3)(c)  to  (k)  basic 

the  basic  measures  are  reported 

to 

measures for all RBDs are provided in the WISE electronic reporting, as well as an inventory 
of national measures.  

A comparison of KTMs reported for significant pressures with those mapped against national 
measures  includes  one  KTM  not  previously  reported  mapped  against  national  measures,  i.e. 
KTM  12  –“Advisory  services  for  agriculture”.  Some  significant  pressures  for  which  no 

128 

 
operational KTMs were reported (e.g. for groundwater: point source - contaminated sites, point 

source - other, and diffuse - transport) are not included, others have been added, e.g. pressures 
for which KTMs were reported operational  without indicating any significant pressure (point 

source  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  plants,  diffuse  sources  -  other,  anthropogenic  - 
unknown).  The  picture  is  consistent  for  all  RBDs  and  water  body  types  suggesting  that  no 

national  measures are in place for some significant  pressures. No information is  reported for 
the  percentage  of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  WFD  objectives  by  2027,  except  for  the 

significant  pressures  diffuse  agricultural  and  dams,  barriers  and  locks  for  hydropower  in 
surface  waters,  where  all  are  expected  to  achieve  WFD  objectives.  The  reported  significant 

pressures are identical for all RBDs; no significant other pressures are reported for any RBD. 

Data on the number of groundwater bodies where substances are causing a failure of chemical 

status are reported for four RBDs – no data is provided for Bothnian Bay. No information is 
provided  on  the  measures  to  address  these  failures  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  No  information  is 

provided for surface waters in any of the RBDs. Pesticides are the main substances of concern, 
with a total of 38 groundwater bodies failing to achieve good status.  

The  number  of  surface  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  due  to  Priority 

Substances  has  been  provided  in  all  RBDs.  However,  the  KTMs  to  address  these  substances 
have  not  been  reported.  By  far  the  substances  of  most  concern  are  mercury  and  brominated 

diphenylethers, with over 22 000 water bodies failing to achieve good status as a result of the 
presence of each of these substances.  

Information on analyses of the gap to good status and the level of implementation of measures 
that  is  expected  has  been  provided  for  all  pressures  for  which  national  measures  have  been 

mapped. Examples of the indicators of the expected gap to good status used include “number 
of  water  bodies  failing  Environmental  Quality  Standards”,  “number  of  contaminated  sites 

preventing achievement of objectives”, and “reduction in phosphorus loads (tonnes phosphorus 
annum) needed”. Well defined indicators of the expected progress with the implementation of 

measures  are  also  provided,  and  include  “the  number  of  installations  where  upgrades  or 
improvements  are  required  to  achieve  objectives”,  and  the  “number  of  water  bodies  to  be 

covered by measure to achieve objectives”. Indicator values are provided for 2015 and 2021, 
but  none  for  2027.  However,  in  many  cases  the  gaps  are  expected  to  be  closed  by  2021  or 

substantial improvements are predicted, and in some cases the gap was expected to be closed 
by 201556.  

56  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  the  gaps  were  closed  by  2015,  so  the  value  of  gaps  remaining  at  2021  is 

zero. 

129 

 
                                                      
The biggest problem area to be addressed in the second and third PoM (gap not closed by 2021) 
seems  to  be  dams,  barriers  and  locks  -  unknown  or  obsolete  with  a  total  of  48757 
dams/weirs/barriers and  locks associated with  other uses that have conditions not  compatible 

with the achievement of objectives expected to be still in place by 2021. This pressure occurs 
in  all  five  RBDs,  but  by  far  the  largest  number,  33458  in  2021,  are  in  the  South  Baltic  Sea 
RBD. The most progress is expected to be made in the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD where the 
number  of  dams/weirs/barriers  and  locks  associated  with  other  uses  that  have  conditions  not 

compatible with the achievement of objectives is expected to reduce from 1 504 in 2015 to 36 
in 2021. The indicators of the gap to good status from diffuse sources from agriculture in terms 

of  phosphorus  in  surface  water  are  reported  to  increase  between  2015  and  2021,  with  a 
significant increase in the area of land covered by measures to reduce emissions. For example, 

in the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD the load reduction needed in surface water is predicted to 
increase from 22 t/y in 2015 to 170 t/y in 2021, and the area of agricultural land required to be 
covered by measures to achieve this reduction increases from 190 km2 to 1 600 km2. However, 
significant  progress  is  expected  in  addressing  the  number  of  farms  not  covered  by  advisory 
services, with a reduction from 10 897 in 2015 to 0 in 2021. For groundwater, the largest gap 

to  good  status  is  reported  to  be  from  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures,  with  a  total  of  246 
groundwater bodies affected. This is predicted to reduce to 0 by 2021 through the introduction 

of 266 drinking water protection zones. 

The  significant  pressures  for  which  there  are  no  operational  KTMs  are  listed  but  no  gap 

analyses  are  provided.  A  number  of  individual  chemicals,  including  priority  pollutants,  are 
indicated as causing significant pressures or failure of good status (in groundwater and surface 

water), but these are also not addressed with any specific measures or gap analyses.  

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 

measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest  ranking.  In  the  first  PoM  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  used  for  the  selection  of 

measures  for  nutrient  reduction.  Most  of  the  other  measures  put  in  place  in  the  first  RBMP 
were administrative measures for which cost-effectiveness analysis is not appropriate. For the 

second  RBMP  it  was  reported  that  a  combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-
effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  in  all  five  RBDs.  The  prioritisation  of  measures  was 

further  examined  in  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  where  it  was  found  that 
prioritisation  and  cost  effectiveness  analysis  has  only  been  described  for  nutrients.  In  the 

57  Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  these  figures  for  total  gaps  not  closed  by  2021  should  be  Skagerrak  and 

Kattegat: 1 030, South Baltic Sea: 494, North Baltic Sea: 143, Bothnian Sea: 3 075, Bothnian Bay: 
Total: 5 599. 

58 Sweden subsequently noted that the largest number (3075) are in the Bothnian Sea.  

857, 

130 

 
                                                      
national  guideline,  a method for prioritising measures according to  cost  effectiveness is  very 

briefly described and an example from a constructed RBD is shown. It has not been possible to 
see if and how this national approach has been implemented in the RBDs or in the catchment 

of  particular  water  bodies.  The  prioritisation  is  not  consistent  as  it  is,  for  example,  a 
precondition that single houses will have to clean their wastewater before other measures are 

introduced. Wastewater treatment for single houses has been given priority to satisfy the legal 
requirements, although it is not the most cost effective measure for removing phosphorus.  

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 
to  support  the  investments  required.  Sweden  has  reported  that  €2  590  m  was  invested  in  all 
measures for the first PoM (2009-2015). For the second PoM it has been reported that a total 
capital investment of €3 280 m will be required for measures required by Articles 11(3)(b)(l), 

11(4)  and  11(5)  (all  other  measures)  with  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  €5  m. 
Depreciation  has  not  been  included  in  the  calculation  of  these  costs.  Sweden  reported  that 

European Union funds contributed €28 m to the first PoM, and are expected to contribute €10 
m to the second PoM. A clear financial commitment is reported as having been secured for the 
implementation of PoM in all five RBDs. On a sectoral basis, commitments have been secured 

in all five RBDs for agriculture, industry, urban, hydropower, recreation and flood protection. 
The transport, energy, and aquaculture sectors were reported to be not applicable in all RBDs.  

Co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMPs and PoM with the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive59 is reported for all five RBDs, as is joint consultation on the RBMPs and the Marine 
Strategy, and consideration of the need for additional or more stringent measures beyond those 
required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the relevant Marine Strategy 

Framework Directive objectives  in  coastal and marine environments.  The required additional 
or more stringent measures relate to nutrients in all five RBDs. KTMs that are relevant to the 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive are listed for all RBDs, with an indication of the type of 
measure, but not indicating the pressures they are addressing. 

The  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive60  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  not  been  integrated 
into a single plan in any of the five RBDs61, financial commitments for the implementation of 
PoM  in  the  flood  protection  areas  are  in  place,  and  WFD  Article  9(4)  has  been  applied  to 

59Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056 

60Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 

2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 

61  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  “A  summary  of  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  were  included  in  all 
RBMPs  but  there’s  no  joint  WFD/Floods  Directive-plan  produced.  A  text  describing  the  necessity  of 
cooperation WFD/Floods Directive is included in the RBMPs”. 

131 

 
                                                      
impoundment  for  flood  protection.  However,  it  is  reported  that  joint  consultation  of  RBMPs 

and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  was  not  carried  out  but  consideration  was  given  to  the 
objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  PoM62.  Win-
win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought 
management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  have  not  been  included  in  the 

RBMP,  nor  has  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences, 
storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers  been  adjusted  to  take  account  of  WFD  Environmental 

Objectives. This seems to be inconsistent with the reported integration of the plans. 

9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other  significant  pressures  are  indicated  for  groundwater  and  surface  water  in  all  five  main 
RBDs.  In  groundwater  and  surface  water,  the  significant  other  pressures  are  reported  as 

“unknown anthropogenic” in all five RBDs. These are to be addressed through the introduction 
of  drinking  water  protection  zones  (KTM13  –  “Drinking  water  protection  measures”),  the 

number of water bodies where these are required has been clearly identified in the indicators of 
the  gap  to  good  status.  For  surface  waters,  introduced  species  is  a  significant  pressure  in  all 
RBDs. Measures (KTM 18 – “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive 

alien species and introduced diseases”) have been identified to address these, the gap to good 
status has been identified and clear targets for the expected progress in the implementation of 

the measures have been set. It is expected that good status will have been achieved in relation 
to this pressure by 2021 in all RBDs except the Bothnian Bay RBD where further measures are 

anticipated in the third PoM (2021-2027). 

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 
national  measures  with  predefined  KTMs.  These  are  expected  to  deliver  the  bulk  of  the 

improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve  WFD  Environmental 
Objectives. A KTM may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than 

one  national  measure.  Member  States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures 
associated  with  the  KTMs,  and  whether  the  national  measures  are  basic  (Article  11(3)(a)  or 
Article 11(3)(b)(l)) or supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 

KTMs in Sweden. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the KTMs has been reported. 

62  Sweden  subsequently  noted  that  the  period  for  consultation  was  overlapping  in  time  and  a  number  of  public 
consultation  meetings  addressed  both  WFD  and  Floods  Directive.  At  some  County  Administrative  boards 
measures  and  objectives  concerning  both  WFD  and  Floods  Directive  were  talked  over  and  included  in  the 
WFD and Floods Directive plans. 

132 

 
                                                      
Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures  associated  with  the  national  measures 

mapped against the KTMs.  

Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 

Sweden 

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment 
of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from forestry 

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution 
including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish 
passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 
ecological flows 

6 

4 

5 

3 

10 

1 

1 

3 

3 

7 

2 

7 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

5 

7 

3 

6 

4 

2 

2 

6 

2 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

52 

45 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Sweden 

Key Type of Measure 

l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
E

e
s
u

Basic Measure Type 
y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

e
c
r
u
o
s

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

t
n
i
o
P

N

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built 
infrastructure 
KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from forestry 

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites 
(historical pollution including sediments, 
groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. 
establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions 
of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or 
establishment of ecological flows 

2 

1 

1 

1 

7 

2 

7 

1 

5 

4 

1 

4 

2 

4 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

9 

1 

3 

3 

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

2 

r
e
t
a
w
e
t
s
a

W
n
a
b
r
U

3 

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

4 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Key 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical 
installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and 
impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior 
authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and 
in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause 
pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 
7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances 
and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in 
Article 4. 
‘Urban Wastewater’ = Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4  Pressures for which  gaps to be filled to achieve the WFD objectives and the Key 

Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  WFD 

Environmental  Objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwater  bodies,  in  terms  of  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status 

and  in  terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological 
status/potential.  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be 

filled or other indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 
and 2021, and were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 
particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  cycle  of  PoM  in  Sweden  was  reported  as  “some 

measures  completed”  for  all  five  main  RBDs.  Obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  the  PoM 
were reported to be lack of finance, lack of measures and lack of mechanisms in all RBDs. The 

most significant progress made seems to be the definition of a significant number of national 
measures  in  relation  to  specific  pressures  (although  not  all  pressures  appear  to  have  been 

135 

 
 
addressed), the planning of more measures and/or the extension of measures in the second and 
third  cycles,  for  example  to  control  nutrients  and  in  particular  phosphorus  loads,  and  the 
integration of the RBMPs with Flood Risk Management Plans.  

New legislation or regulations to implement the PoM in the first cycle was reported necessary 
and already adopted in all five RBDs. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  For  groundwater,  waterbody  specific  measures  should  be 

considered in the Programme of Measures. 

  Assessment: In at least two RBDs, for groundwater, there are no KTMs, among others, 
for diffuse pressures from  urban  run-off, agriculture and transport, or for abstractions 
for public water supply and others. Data on the number of groundwater bodies where 

substances are causing a failure of chemical status are reported for four RBDs – no data 
is provided for the Bothnian Bay RBD. No information is provided on the measures to 

address these failures in any of the RBDs. A number of individual chemicals, including 
priority  pollutants,  are  indicated  as  causing  significant  pressures  or  failure  of  good 

status  (in  groundwater  and  surface  water),  but  these  are  also  not  addressed  with  any 
specific measures or gap analyses. There is a lack of water body specific measures in 

relation to groundwater. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Provide  a  more  comprehensive  cost  effectiveness  analysis  of  the 

measures in the RBMPs. 

Assessment: A combination of quantitative and qualitative cost effectiveness analyses 

were carried out in all five RBDs, but no details on individual measures are available 
from this assessment. This was further examined in the RBMPs where it was found that 

cost  effectiveness  analysis  was,  again,  only  applied  to  measures  relating  to  nutrients. 
This recommendation has therefore not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Establish source apportionment for at least the polluting substances 
(or groups of substances, e.g. pesticides) most commonly found and/or having the most 

significant impact in each RBD, and link the impact to specific measures because the 

136 

 
connection between source and impact is very vague in the first RBMPs, especially at a 

single substance level. 

Assessment:  For  surface  water  bodies,  significance  of  pressures  is  reported  as  being 

linked to the potential failure of objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds. New 
and more reliable classification of biological quality elements were established after a 

national  classification  project  WATERS  (ending  in  2013).  This  allowed  a  more 
confident assessment of pressures than what was feasible for the first RBMPs. Sweden 

has made major attempts to improve the assessment of significance in their analyses of 
pressures,  developing  a  set  of  new  methods  for  each  of  the  major  pressure/impact 

categories:  nutrient  enrichment,  acidification,  contamination  by  hazardous  substances 
(both  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  Priority  Substances)  and  morphological 

pressures. For groundwater bodies, numerical tools and expert judgement were used for 
defining  significant  pressures  from  point  and  diffuse  sources.  For  abstraction  and 

artificial recharge and other pressures expert judgement was used. The significance of 
pressures  is  reported  to  be  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  but  the 
significance  of  pressures  has  not  been  defined  in  terms  of  thresholds.  There  is  no 

information  on  substance  specific  measures  in  the  second  RBMPs,  except  for 
phosphorus; in particular, there is no information on river basin specific substances and 
Priority Substances63. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Sweden  needs  to  improve  its  Programme  of  Measures  to  be  more 
explicit  on  the  specific  measures  that  are  being  planned,  to  enable  a  transparent 
planning  tool showing  how  the environmental objectives can be met  in  a coordinated 

manner across the RBDs. Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and 
the funding of the measures should be included in the Programme of Measures so the 

approach to achieve the objectives is clear. 

Assessment: A significant number of national measures have been defined in relation to 

significant pressures, although some pressures identified at RBD level still do not seem 
to  have  measures  to  tackle  them;  the  scope,  timing  and  funding  is  not  clear  for  all 
required  measures,  although  financial  commitments  are  in  place.  The  RBMPs  and 

Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated into single plans. Indicators of 

63  Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  has  reported  the  national  measures  and  which  priority  substances  and 
RBSPs  they  specifically  should  address  in  a  background  document.  SE  has  reported  the  general 
implementation of article 11.3.k in table 4.9 in the second PoM, including the legislation and the measures in 
the PoM that addresses specific substances and priority substances 

137 

 
                                                      
the  gap  to  good  status  have  been  developed  as  have  clear  targets  of  the  level  of 

implementation  of  the  measures  expected,  for  those  pressures  where  measures  have 
been developed. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  There  is  no  clear  link  between  status  assessment  and  the  need  for 
pressure  reduction  (nutrients,  chemical  pollutants  and  hydromorphology)  and 

measures. Many of the measures are "administrative" (new investigations, monitoring 
etc.).  

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of  the  RBDs,  identification  of  pressures,  and  assessment  of  status,  these  need  to  be 

addressed in  the current cycle, to  ensure that adequate measures can be  put  in  place 
before the next cycle. 

Assessment: Whilst a significant number of measures have been defined in relation to 
specific pressures, there is minimal information in terms of pressures and measures at 

water  body  level,  and  no  information  on  specific  substances  including  priority 
pollutants.  There  is  also  minimal  information  on  gap  analyses  in  terms  of  achieving 

good  status.  With  respect  to  measures,  these  recommendations  have  not  been 
addressed64. 

64 Sweden subsequently noted that measures are not reported at water body level but they are publicly available in 
the national Water Information System Sweden. Gap analysis are reported in the reporting of KTM at district 
level but are also are publicly available in the national Water Information System Sweden. 

138 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

the 

in 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as relevant for Sweden, where only the North 

Baltic  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs  report  minor  numbers  of  groundwater  bodies 
failing good quantitative status (0.17 and 0.19 % respectively) and minor numbers of surface 

water bodies with  significant  abstraction pressures (2.63 and 0.5 %). The Water Exploitation 
Index  +  is  not  calculated;  though  water  quantity  data  have  been  reported  to  support  the 

European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. Water scarcity is not 
considered  an  issue  at  the  international  level.  The  RBMPs  do  not  include  a  water  resource 

allocation and management plan. 

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption 

No data have been reported for the uses of water consumption, as water quantity pressures are 
not significant. 

10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)  in  Sweden,  there  is  a  permitting  regime  and  a 

register of abstractions for surface water and groundwater, a concession, authorisation and/or 
permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of  impoundments. 
Furthermore, small abstractions do not require permits but are all registered. Measures on this 

topic  have  been  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle,  and  new  measures  and/or  significant 
changes are not planned for the second cycle. 

Under  Article  11(3)(c),  measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  have  been 
implemented in the previous cycle and new measures and/or significant changes are planned. A 

number  of  measures  related  to  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  are  mentioned,  divided 
between central and regional/local authorities. The measures are predominantly administrative 

(develop  guidelines,  strengthen  the  supervision/control  within  Protected  Areas  with  e.g. 
companies, planning etc.). A special focus is on hydropower plants - but again administrative 

measures (e.g. identify needs for improvement) dominate. In the detailed sub-basin PoM (only 

139 

 
available  for  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD),  some  proposed  measures  are  described  (e.g. 

for Skagerrak and Kattegat, sub-basin 42, a minimum flow is required for the 34 fish passes in 
connection to hydropower stations). 

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies  (Article  11(3)(f))  have  been  implemented  in  the  first  cycle  and  new  measures  or 

significant changes are planned for the second cycle for all RBDs. 

Complementary measures under KTMs  are not  reported for addressing abstraction pressures. 

Water reuse is not foreseen as a measure. 

10.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM relevant to 

this topic.  

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

While  in  the  first  cycle  for  the  southern  RBDs  (North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and 

Skagerrak  and  Kattegat)  agriculture  has  been  identified  as  a  major  pressure  for  the  diffuse 
loading of nutrients, in the second cycle this is the case for all RBDs. This is also reflected in 

the selected measures where measures to reduce nutrients are now applied in all RBDs and not 
only  in  the  South  Baltic  Sea  and  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs.  For  hydromorphology, 

agriculture is mentioned as a pressure in all RBDs. As in the first cycle, chemical pollution is 
also mentioned as a factor affecting water bodies. While in the first cycle, abstraction by the 

agriculture sector did not seem to be a significant pressure, lowering of the groundwater water 
table due to abstraction is reported in the South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs 

in the second cycle. Saline intrusion in groundwater is newly reported in the South Baltic Sea 
RBD in the second cycle. 

A gap assessment was carried out for the load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced and for the 
reduction in the number of applications of pesticides.  

Measures to address these pressures or impacts are KTM 3 – Reduce pesticides pollution from 
agriculture, KTM 2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, KTM 12 – Advisory services 

for agriculture, KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard 
zones, buffer zones etc.), and KTM 23 – Natural water retention measures. Implementation of 

basic measures (the minimum requirement to be complied with) under Article 11(3)(h) for the 
control  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  is  ensured  in  all  RBDs  with  the  same 

rules  for  different  parts  of  the  RBDs.  Supplementary  measures  are  applied  in  all  RBDs. 
General binding rules for nitrates, pesticides and phosphorus to control diffuse pollution from 

agriculture  are  set  and  applied  in  all  RBDs.  The  area  to  be  covered  by  the  measure  tackling 
nutrient pollution is expected to increase significantly in the second cycle.  

The  "physical"  measures  meant  to  reduce  nutrient  load  from  agriculture  are  described 

regarding their effects, costs etc. in a national catalogue of measures - but there is no indication 
of the method of implementation, i.e. mandatory or voluntary or both. The measures from the 

national catalogue are then used in the sub-basin plans to address the gap to the achievement of 
the  objectives.  In  these  sub-plans,  the  measures  planned  to  reduce  nutrient  input  from 

agriculture are indicated as voluntary; they are presented as "proposals". For KTM 3 - Reduce 

141 

 
pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture  and  KTM  12  -  Advisory  services  for  agriculture,  no 

reference  was  found  to  these  KTMs  in  the  sub-plans.  For  KTM  17  -  Measures  to  reduce 
sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off,  there  was  a  reference  in  the  sub-plan  but  no 

information is reported to WISE. 

With regard to drinking water safeguard zones, these are in place but there will be significant 

changes to them in their implementation as a result of the second RBMP. Only a brief, general 
explanation  has  been  found  in  the  RBMPs  mentioning  that  for  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat 

RBD, 66  % of the Protected Areas (safeguard zones) for drinking water needs to be assessed 
again and if necessary, revised. However, what this revision should contain is not described. 

Furthermore, there is some regulation within the safeguard zones, as regards additional control 
measures  on  land.  In  the  PoM,  a  list  is  presented  with  the  responsibilities  for  three  public 

authorities in relation to Article 11(3)(d). This general description is detailed to some extent in 
the  sub-basin  PoM  (not found  for  the  North  Baltic  Sea  RBD,  but  referring  to  Skagerrak  and 

Kattegat RBD), where there is a chapter targeting drinking water and groundwater protection. 
Significant  pressures  are  identified,  the  need  for  improvement  described  and,  in  the  end,  the 
measures  proposed.  In  general,  the  measures  are  described  as  supervision  and  control  within 

the safeguard zones but  not  outside the zone. So, the overall impression is  that measures are 
mainly administrative and targeted within the safeguard zones.  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 
RBDs. 

Financing  of  agricultural  measures  is  secured  in  all  RBDs.  There  is  no  indication  if  national 
sources are used in addition to the Rural Development program. 

It remains unclear if the application of the polluter pays principle in the agricultural sector has 
been fully implemented. 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

While  in  the  first  cycle  for  the  southern  RBDs  (North  Baltic  Sea,  South  Baltic  Sea  and 

Skagerrak and Kattegat) agriculture has been identified as a major pressure for diffuse loading 
of  nutrients,  this  is  the  case  for  all  RBDs  in  the  second  cycle.  This  is  also  reflected  in  the 

selected measures where those to reduce nutrients are now applied in all RBDs and not only in 
the South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs as in the first cycle. While in the first 

cycle abstraction by the agriculture sector does not seem to be a significant pressure, lowering 
the  groundwater  water  table  due  to  abstraction  is  reported  in  the  South  Baltic  Sea  and 

142 

 
Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBDs  in  the  second  cycle.  Saline  intrusion  in  groundwater  is  newly 

reported in the South Baltic Sea RBD. 

11.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action 
on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Increase  the  number  of  basic  measures  in  place  to  address 

agriculture's impact on water quality and quantity. 

Assessment: Measures have been taken under all relevant Articles of the WFD relevant 
to this recommendation. Therefore, this recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  it  is  clear  in  the  RBMPs  what  the  gap  on  pressures  from 
agriculture is and to what extent the gap will be filled by basic measures and to what 
extent by supplementary measures. 

Assessment: A gap assessment was carried out for pesticides and nutrients. Basic and 
supplementary measures are reported in all RBDs. Measures under Article 13(a), (e), (i) 

and (h) are taken and reported. Therefore this recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Provide  information  in  RBMPs  on  what  nutrient  load  reduction  is 
necessary  from  agriculture  to  reach  nutrient  conditions  consistent  with  good  status, 
and  to  what  extent  the  measures  included  in  Sweden's  Programme  of  Measures 

(nitrates  measures,  WFD  basic  measures,  WFD  supplementary  measures)  will  bridge 
this gap. Sweden should ensure such an approach and calculations are clearly set out 

as the basis for consultation on measures. 

Assessment: A gap assessment was carried out for pesticides and nutrients. Therefore 

this recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and revision of 
Action Programmes (Nitrates Directive65) take into account action needed to contribute 
towards meeting WFD obligations. 

65  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

from 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

by 

143 

 
                                                      
Assessment: A gap assessment was carried out for pesticides and nutrients. However, it 

has not been possible to find a clear understanding – or some kind of assessment of the 
effects  of  the  Nitrate  Action  Plans.  The  nitrate-sensitive  areas  have  been  reviewed  in 

2014, and adjusted towards achieving WFD objectives. The actual nitrate sensitive area 
can be seen in VISS. Therefore this recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  proper  consideration  of  WFD  in  Rural  Development 

Programmes. 

Assessment:  No  assessment  of  the  Rural  Development  Program  has  been  made  in 
relation to this issue. The RBMPs clearly state that the Swedish Board of Agriculture is 

responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the  Rural  Development  Program,  which  will 
contribute  to  compliance  with  environmental  quality  standards  for  water.  The  action 

shall  be taken no later than three  years after the establishment of the action  program. 
This recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Put  more  in  focus  the  need  to  reduce  the  load  of  phosphorus  in 

coastal areas – according to the gap analysis - and link it directly to measures. 

Assessment:  In  the  sub-plans  (e.g.  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD,  sub-plan  41) 
phosphorus load  reduction is  accounted for in  a  number of measures.  The calculation 
method  for  the  modelling  of  eutrophication  is  documented66.  The  amount  of 
phosphorus to be reduced per water body (including coastal areas) is publicly available 
in  the  national  VISS  Measures  and  are  based  on  these  reduction  needs.  This 
recommendation is fulfilled. 

66 See 

http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/SiteCollectionDocuments/gemensamt/publikationer/%C3%96vriga%20pu
blikationer/Rapport2016-19-%C3%85tg%C3%A4rder%20mot%20%C3%B6verg%C3%B6dning.pdf  

144 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 12

  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 
agriculture  

12.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment,  saline  discharges  and  chemicals  (Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all 
sectors and sources apart from agriculture.  

Key  types  of  measures  (KTM)  are  groups  of  measures  identified  by  Member  States  in  their 
Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure or purpose. A KTM could be limited 

to  one  national  measure  but  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  The 
same  individual  measure  can  also  be  part  of  more  than  one  KTM  because  it  may  be 

multipurpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of one another. 

The following KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pollution causing failure of WFD 
objectives have been reported for all RBDs in Sweden: 

  KTM 1 - "Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants"  

  KTM  4  -  "Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including 

sediments, groundwater, soil)"  

  KTM  13  -  "Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard 

zones, buffer zones etc.)" 

  KTM  16  –  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 
(including farms)” KTM 21 - "Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure"  

  KTM 22 - " Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry"  

  KTM 25 - "Measures to counteract acidification" 

Information  was  not  provided 
(Torne),  Bothnian  Sea 
(Trondelagsfylkene),  Bothnian  Bay  (Nordland),  Bothnian  Bay  (Troms)  or  Skagerrak  and 

the  Bothnian  Bay 

for 

Kattegat (Glomma) RBDs. Sweden clarified that the information is to be found as a part of the 
management plans of the main districts responsible for the management of these international 

areas with minor parts in Sweden. 

145 

 
The  WFD  specifies  that  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 

measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 
measures  are  not  enough  to  address  specific  significant  pressures  (see  the  chapter  9  in  this 

report). Sweden has indicated the number of basic and supplementary measures per RBD for 
each KTM mentioned above.  

Sweden provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c  
to  k)  but  not  the  use  of  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regimes  to  control  wastewater  point 

source discharges. The operation of a register of wastewater discharges was reported for five of 
the 10 Swedish RBDs for surface and groundwater. Information was not reported for the other 

RBDs. Small wastewater discharges are exempted from controls in five of the 10 RBDs. Some 
direct discharges to groundwater are authorised in Sweden in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) 

in five of the 10 RBDs.  

Five of the 10 RBDs reported that there are measures in place to eliminate / reduce pollution 
from Priority Substances and other substances (Basic measures Article 11(3)(k))67.  

Concerning  measures  for  Priority  Substances  causing  failure,  mercury  and  brominated 
diphenyl  ethers  are  causing  failure  for  all  (100  %)  of  the  water  bodies.  The  main  source  of 

these  two  substances  is  reported  as  atmospheric  deposition  of  mainly  non-Swedish  origin. 
Other  substances  (both  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants)  and  their 
sources are mentioned in the general description, but not in any way aggregated or quantified68. 
Specific problems with Priority Substances can be found in the sub-plan but only a few have 

been examined. All chapters regarding Priority Substances begin with describing mercury and 
brominated diphenyl ethers. Even in the specific sub-plans the description of other substances 

is vague; for example, in the Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD sub plan 11, significant impact is 
described but only in terms of the potential sources, e.g. 18 urban wastewater treatment plants, 

two industries, five aquaculture plants, not in terms of actual occurrence of Priority Substances. 
The need for improvement is described mainly as the need for more investigations. Measures 

are  directed  towards  old  industrial  sites  -  and  the  rest  are  proposals  for  the  competent 
authorities and are not mandatory measures. 

There  is  no  detailed  description  of  groundwater-related  pollutants.  In  the  description  of  the 
sub-basins, a chapter is dedicated to chemical pollutants but it is general and very unspecific. 

For  example  in  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD  sub-basin  42,  it  is  stated  that  25  %  of  the 

67 Sweden subsequently clarified that the general implementation of Article 11.3.k is reported in the second PoM, 

including the legislation and the measures that address specific substances and priority substances.   

68 Sweden subsequently clarified that the national measures and the Priority Substances and River Basin Specific 

Pollutants they specifically should address are provided in a background document. 

146 

 
                                                      
groundwater bodies are at risk of not achieving good status - due to heavy metals (no further 

specification) and other industrial pollution and pesticides (not specified). The measures seem 
not to be connected to the pollutants. 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In  the  first  RBMPs  measures  were  not  substance  specific.  From  the  electronic  reporting  to 

WISE it seems that nothing in the PoM has changed since the reports were published on the 
assessment of the first RBMPs because information on substance-specific measures is missing 
in  the  second  RBMP  as  well,  despite  the  fact  that  information  reported  to  WISE  on  the 

chemical status of surface and groundwater bodies indicates that certain Priority Substances (in 
all  10  RBDs)  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (in  six  RBDs)  are  causing  failure  in  the 

achievement of the environmental objectives. Information reported to WISE shows no KTMs 
reported  for  significant  pressures  from  individual  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  on  the 

objectives, and indicates that KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and 

losses of Priority Substances" has been neither mapped against national measures nor reported 
to be tackling significant pressures in the RBDs in Sweden. 

Sweden  informed  that  the  measures  addressing  pollution  with  Priority  Substances  and  River 
Basin Specific Pollutants are associated with other KTMs. 

12.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  Provide  in  RBMPs  (in  relation  to  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  - 
calculation  of  disproportionate  cost  and  the  definition  of  technical  unfeasibility) 
additional  clarification  and  examples  of  unclear  sources  of  pollution  and  diffuse 

leakages, as well as measures for nutrient pollution, which should be implemented as 
soon as possible. 

Assessment:  Measures  to  tackle  diffuse  as  well  as  point  sources  are  reported  in  five 
RBDs.  

For  nutrient  pollution,  each  sub-basin  plan  (e.g.  for  the  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD 
there  are  43  different  sub-plans)  in  Sweden  contains,  if  relevant,  a  source 
apportionment  for  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  so  that  it  is  clear  which  sources  are 

147 

 
dominating. The sub-plan also contains a proposal for measures to reduce the load. This 

is very specific, e.g. for the coast area to Kattegat – sub-plan 41 - a total reduction of 1 
999  kg  N/y  and  2  109  kg  P/y  is  planned.  This  contributes  together  with  the  42  other 

sub-plans to a total effect of 2.9 tonnes N out of a calculated reduction need for nitrate 
of  6.7  tonnes  N.  When  it  comes  to  hazardous  substances  including  metals,  the 

description  is  much  more  unclear  –  both  as  regards  the  dominating  sources  and  as 
regards the measures necessary to achieve good status. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Put  more  in  focus  the  need  to  reduce  the  load  of  phosphorus  in 

coastal areas – according to the gap analysis - and link it directly to measures. 

Assessment:  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  been  reported  to  tackle  phosphorus 

emissions, and these KTM have been mapped against national measures. 

Although in the above case (coast area) it was possible to determine the effectiveness of 

the measures in relation to N, it has not been possible to find similar information in the 
WISE reporting or RBMP (on reduction need) for P, therefore the effectiveness of the 
measures is not clear69. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Consider additional measures needed to achieve the WFD objectives 

in water bodies (in relation to Directive 91/271/EEC). 70 

Assessment: It is in general assumed that the requirements of the Directive 91/271/EEC 
are  fulfilled.  For  most  of  the  sub-plans,  a  reduction  need  is  calculated  -  e.g.  for  the 

Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  RBD,  sub-plan  8,  the  reduction  need  is  calculated  to  be  1.3 
tonnes P/y to bring all water bodies in the sub-catchment to good status. A number of 

measures are proposed (though it is unclear how they will be implemented) with a total 
effect of 681 kg P/y – meaning it will only cover half of the need. No information has 
been found on how to cover the other half71. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

69  Sweden  reported  that  a  document  published  in  2016  on  measures  against  eutrophication  describes  the 

effectiveness of measures for phosphorus 

70  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

71  Sweden  subsequently  informed  that  there  is  no  basis  for  proposing  additional  measures  (with  reference  to 

technically feasibility). 

148 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant hydromorphological pressures are reported in all RBDs (except for Bothnian Bay 

(Troms)).  These  pressures  are  assigned  to  specific  sectors  only  to  some  extent.  Significant 
physical  alterations  are  mainly  related  to  uses  not  specified  according  to  the  uses  listed  in 

WISE (other use) or the use is unknown/obsolete. To a certain extent, physical alterations are 
the  agricultural  sector.  Hydrological  alterations  and  continuity  barriers 
related 

to 

(dams/barriers/locks) are mainly  assigned to  the  hydropower sector  and to uses not  specified 
according  to  the  uses  listed  in  WISE  (other  use).  In  most  water  bodies  affected  by 

dams/barriers/locks, however, the sector is unknown or obsolete. 

Operational KTMs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures are reported in the five 

main RBDs (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South  Baltic Sea and Skagerrak 
and  Kattegat)  for  dams/barriers/locks  linked  to  hydropower  and  other  uses.  For  the  small 

RBDs,  hydromorphological  measures  are  implemented,  but  these  are  to  be  found  in  the 
programmes  of  measures  of  the  respective  main  RBDs.  The  main  KTMs  reported  as 

operational to tackle continuity barriers are KTM 5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity” and 
KTM 7 – “Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows”. However, 

overall  management  objectives  in  terms  of  restoring  river  continuity  have  not  been  set.  It  is 
also  noted  that  no  operational  KTMs  are  reported  to  address  significant  physical  alterations, 

hydrological  alterations  and  hydromorphological  alterations.  Sweden  subsequently  clarified 
that  the  RBMPs  include  environmental  objectives  set  with  regard  to  river  continuity  for  all 

water  bodies  where  it  was  considered  necessary.  The  plans  also  include  measures  to  address 
the  relevant  hydromorphological  pressures,  which  are  administrative  measures  already 

adopted, and additional physical measures, which have been only proposed. 

These planned specific hydromorphological measures planned include fish ladders and bypass 
channels, removal of structures, restoration of modified bank and bed structure and setting of 

ecological flows.  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 

control  physical  modifications  in  the  five  main  RBDs,  which  covers  changes  to  the  riparian 
area  of  water  bodies  according  to  WFD  Article  11(3)(i).  There  is  also  a  register  of  physical 

modifications of water bodies. 

149 

 
Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD72 and Floods Directive73, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) are not reported 
as included in the PoM. Also, the design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood 

defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers,  is  reported  not  to  have  been  adapted  to  take  into 
account WFD objectives. KTM 23 – “Natural Water Retention Measures” is not reported either 

to tackle any significant pressures. 

Ecological flows have been derived partly, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, in the five main 

RBDs but the work is still on-going. The ecological flows which have been derived so far have 
been  implemented  only  in  some  relevant  water  bodies.  The  issue  of  Ecological  Flows  is 

generally not described in any detail.  

Concerning  the  level  of  ambition  for  tackling  significant  hydromorphological  pressures, 

indicators on the pressure gap to be filled and KTM value indicators are reported for 2015 and 
2021 (but not for 2027) and only for dams/barriers/locks due to hydropower and other uses in 

the  five  main  RBDs.  No  gap  indicators  are  provided  for  the  other  types  of  significant 
hydromorphological pressures or other RBDs. 

From the information available, there will be considerable progress in closing the gap by 2021 

in terms of continuity barriers; the number of dams/ weirs/ locks associated with hydropower 
and other uses which have conditions not compatible with the achievement of objectives will 

be reduced by approximately 88 % until 2021. Nevertheless, after 2021 and according to the 
KTM  7  -  "Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows"  value 

indicators reported for barriers, there will still be a considerable number of water bodies where 
ecological  flows  need  to  be  established  to  achieve  the  objectives,  especially  in  the  Bothnian 

Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat RBDs.  

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  no  concrete  hydromorphological  measures  were  identified  to  achieve 
improvements in hydromorphology within the first cycle. The proposed measures were mainly 

aiming  at  an  improved  basis  for  decisions  upon  specific  measures  to  be  taken  in  the  next 
planning  cycle.  Now  in  the  second  RBMPs,  operational  KTM  to  tackle  significant 

hydromorphological pressures are reported in the five main RBDs. 

72  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
of 

policy 

water 

field 

Community 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  

action 

the 

in 

73  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 

2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  

150 

 
                                                      
13.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  Provide  clear  commitment  in  the  RBMPs  to  properly  prioritised 
specific 

review  of  hydropower  permits  because  no 

measures  and 

the 

hydromorphological measures are identified in the Programme of Measures despite the 
large number of water bodies being affected by this kind of pressure. A clear link for 

the protection of biological quality elements should be established.  

Assessment:  The  number  of  water  bodies  affected  by  significant  hydromorphological 

pressures is reported, but not the number of water bodies requiring hydromorphological 
measures to achieve good ecological status/good ecological potential for all the relevant 

significant  hydromorphological  pressures.  Information on the number of water bodies 
is only reported for water bodies, where ecological flows need to be established (KTM 

7 - "Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows") to achieve 
objectives for 2015 and 2021 for hydropower dams in the five main RBDs (Bothnian 

Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic Sea, South Baltic Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat). In 
general, reported information on the gap indicators is not complete. Indicators are only 

reported on the number of barriers due to hydropower and other uses in the five main 
types  of  significant 
RBDs.  No  gap 

indicators  are  provided  for 

the  other 

hydromorphological 
significant 
hydromorphological  pressures  are  only  reported  for  dams/barriers/locks  linked  to 
hydropower and other uses. No operational KTMs are reported for significant physical 

pressures.  Operational  KTMs 

tackle 

to 

alterations, hydrological alterations and hydromorphological alterations.  

There  is  no  indication  in  the  RBMP  of  a  systematic  revision  of  permits  to  address 
hydromorphological  problems74.  The  PoM  however  states  the  necessity  to  plan  for 
initiatives  in  relation  to  the  revision  of  permits.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  is 

partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  river  restoration  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green 
infrastructure  and/or  natural  water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of 

environmental  (improvements  in  water  quality,  increase  water  infiltration  and  thus 

74  Sweden  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  a  new  environmental  legislation  will  apply  as  from 
January 2019, which will result in a national plan ensuring that all hydropower plants will have to be subject to 
updated permits. This will also apply to other water uses. 

151 

 
                                                      
aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 

benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment:  No  progress  is  noted.  Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the 

objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural 
Water  Retention  Measures  (NWRM)  are  not  included  in  the  PoM75.  KTM  23  – 
“Natural  Water  Retention  Measures”  is  not  reported  either  to  tackle  any  significant 
pressures. Therefore, this recommendation is not yet fulfilled. 

75 Sweden clarified that this may be related to an incomplete reporting 

152 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation 
and compliance since the first cycle 

As  in  the  first  cycle,  the  definition  of  water  services  is  a  narrow  one,  i.e.  water  supply  and 
wastewater treatment  (combined). Cost  recovery rates are provided  for these services i.e. the 

municipal water and wastewater system (combined).  

There is no information in the RBMPs regarding cost recovery of self-abstraction in agriculture 

or regarding collection and discharge of waste water from scattered settlements. 

It is reported in WISE that Article 9(4) is used for some water services, although these are not 

reported as such regarding financial cost recovery (flood protection, irrigation, navigation, self-
abstraction and water storage)76.  

Water  uses  are  identified  and  described,  being  abstraction,  agriculture,  industry,  households 
(urban/domestic),  wastewater  treatment,  water  supply,  cooling  water,  diffuse  pollution  from 

agriculture or forestry (as "other use"). Cost recovery is applied through water service charges 
for  public  water  supply  and  public  wastewater  treatment.  The  cost  recovery  rates  also  cover 
costs  relating  to  water  use77.  These  users  may  be  households,  industries,  and  agricultural 
enterprises.  The  contributions  of  these  sectors  to  the  recovery  of  the  costs  are  elaborated  in 

detail in a background document prepared by Sweden.  

Regarding the integration of environmental and resource costs in the costs recovered there are 
rules on their inclusion in the relevant Swedish legislation78. 

There is no specific explanation with regard to the incentive function of water pricing policies 
and/or their adequateness. 

No  specific  information  is  provided  on  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle.  It  is  only  stated  that  the 
Polluter Pays Principle is generally covered by the municipal wastewater fees. 

76 Sweden subsequently clarified that this concerns a reporting error in WISE. Article 9(4) was not  used in this 

reporting cycle. 

77  Cost  recovery  for  water  services  is  secured  by  the  applicable  law  (lagen  (2006:412)  om  allmänna 

vattentjänster). 

78 See 6, 10 and 24-34 §§ lagen om allmänna vattentjänster (2006:412) 

153 

 
                                                      
The economic analysis is reported as updated. 

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation: The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 
waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  waste  water,  also  when  they  are 

"self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture to collection and discharge 
of  waste  water,  from  scattered  settlements,  for  which  for  instance  environmental  and 

resource  costs  also  need  to  be  recovered.  The  cost  recovery  should  be  transparently 
presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be 

included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive 
function  of  water  pricing  for  all  water  services,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  an  efficient 

use  of  water.  Information  on  how  the  polluter  pays  principle  has  been  taken  into 
account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment: As in the first cycle, the definition of water services is narrow, i.e. water 
supply and wastewater treatment (combined) are considered water services. Hence, cost 

recovery  rates  are  provided  only  for  the  municipal  water  and  wastewater  system 
(combined).  There  is  no  information  in  the  RBMPs  regarding  cost  recovery  of  self-

abstraction  in  agriculture  or  regarding  collection  and  discharge  of  waste  water  from 
scattered settlements. 

It is reported in WISE  that Article 9(4) is used for some water services, although these 

overall  are  not  reported  as  such  regarding  financial  cost  recovery  (flood  protection, 
irrigation, navigation, self-abstraction and water storage)79.  

Cost  recovery  is  applied  through  water  service  charges  for  public  water  supply  and 
public wastewater treatment80.  

Water  uses  are  identified  and  described,  being  abstraction,  agriculture,  industry, 
households  (urban/domestic),  wastewater  treatment,  water  supply,  cooling  water, 

diffuse pollution from agriculture or forestry (as "other use"). The cost  recovery rates 

79 Sweden subsequently clarified that this  concerns a reporting error in WISE. Article 9(4) was not used in this 

reporting cycle. 

80  Cost  recovery  for  water  services  is  secured  by  the  applicable  law  (lagen  (2006:412)  om  allmänna 

vattentjänster). 

154 

 
                                                      
also  cover  costs  relating  to  water  use.  Cost  recovery  is  applied  through  water  service 

charges  for  public  water  supply  and  public  wastewater  treatment.  Users  may  be 
households, industries, and agricultural  enterprises. The contributions  of  these sectors 

to the recovery of the costs are elaborated in detail in a background document prepared 
by Sweden.  

Regarding  the  integration  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  in  the  costs  recovered 
there are rules on their inclusion in the relevant Swedish legislation81. 

There is no specific explanation with regard to the incentive function of water pricing 
policies and/or their adequateness. Volumetric pricing/charging is in place for all users 

connected to the public water supply system, which can be households, industries, and 
agricultural  enterprises.  It  is  unclear  if  "adequate  incentives"  are  applied  for  those 

additional water uses beyond public water supply (and waste water) services. It seems 
self-abstraction is still an issue, with no charges/fees applied.  

No specific information is provided on the Polluter Pays Principle. It is only stated that 
the Polluter Pays Principle is generally covered by the municipal wastewater fees. 

Overall, there is  progress on the recommendation (with regard to  the  contributions  of 

different water uses to cost recovery), but significant gaps remain; the recommendation 
is partially fulfilled. 

81 See 6, 10 and 24-34 §§ lagen om allmänna vattentjänster (2006:412) 

155 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 15

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 

(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Sweden has identified all types of Protected Areas associated with surface and groundwaters in 

the  second  of  RBMPs,  except  sensitive  areas  designated  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment  Directive in  line with  their whole territory  approach to  the implementation  of this 

Directive. An overview of the number of each type of Protected Areas is shown in Table 15.1.  

Table 15.1  Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD of Sweden, for surface 

and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 
Recreational waters, including areas designated 
as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC82 
Protection of species where the maintenance or 
improvement of the status of water is an 
important factor in their protection, including 
relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds) 
Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status of 
water is an important factor in their protection, 
including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated 
under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats)  

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 
91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive) 83  

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 

Number of Protected Area Associated with 

Groundwat
er 

1010 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

69 

3 

54 

187 

187 

249 

51 

51 

643 

446 

310 

184 

19 

1 

1 

1 

25 

32 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

82  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management  of  bathing  water  quality  and  repealing  Directive  76/160/EEC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007  

83  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

by 

caused 
from 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

84 Sweden subsequently clarified that this nitrate sensitive area covers a large part of the Swedish territory 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
An overview of the status assessment of all water bodies within Protected Areas is shown in 
Figure  15.1.  A  high  proportion  of  the  classifications  of  ecological  status  have  been  assigned 
low confidence or have no information; with extensive use of expert judgement in rivers and 
coastal waters. 

Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  reported  for 
Sweden.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies 
associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In  terms  of  setting  specific  objectives  for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Habitats  and 
Birds Directives associated with surface waters, Sweden reports that some specific objectives 
have been set, but work is still on-going to determine needs. Sweden also reports for the most 
part WFD environmental objectives are sufficient to protect water dependent interest features 

but, where this is not the case, then additional more stringent standards are applied that ensure 
the  requisite  protection.  No  information  is  provided  in  WISE  on  whether  these  specific 

objectives have been met. 

Where  Protected  Areas  have  been  designated  in  relation  to  shellfish  production  (in  the  SE5 

RBD),  additional  specific  objectives  have  also  been  defined,  comprising  microbiological 

157 

 
 
 
standards  that  are  different  to  those  in  the  repealed  Shellfish  Directive  2006/113/EC.  No 

information is provided in WISE on whether these specific objectives have been met. 

Specific  objectives  have  been  set  for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  Article  7  associated 

with  surface  water  bodies.  These  comprise  ‘general’  environmental  quality  standards  and 
further  work  is  indicated  to  be  underway  to  make  these  standards  more  water  and  substance 

specific. No information is provided in WISE on whether these specific objectives have been 
met. 

No specific objectives have been set for Protected Areas designated under Article 7 associated 
with  groundwater  bodies  but  Sweden  indicates  that  additional  work  will  be  undertaken  to 
enhance existing protections in the second cycle85. 

Sweden reports monitoring programmes for Protected Area types for only some of the reported 

Protected Areas (Table 15.2): in groundwater, only for Article 7 and not for Nitrates Protected 
Areas  and,  in  surface  water,  not  for  Habitats,  Birds  and  fish  and  shellfish  related  Protected 

Areas.  Where  monitoring  programmes  are  reported,  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  is  often 
inconsistent  with  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  of  each  type  in  each  water  category; 
sometimes the number of monitoring sites is higher than the number of Protected Areas, which 

is  consistent  with  expectations,  and  sometimes  not.  The  lack  of  some  Protected  Area 
monitoring  programmes  and  the  low  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  some  cases  indicates 
insufficient monitoring of water bodies associated with Protected Areas86. 

Information on measures targeted towards Protected Areas has only been found for Drinking 

Water  Protected  Areas  (both  surface  and  groundwaters);  the  measures  described  are  mainly 
administrative in character, such as better supervision of abstraction catchments.  

No exemptions have been applied. 

85    Sweden  subsequently  clarified  that  the  national  groundwater  threshold  values  applied  are  based  on  drinking 

water standards and, as such, the objectives in the Article 7 Protected Areas should be met. 

86  Sweden  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  responsibilities  for  the  work  with  protected  areas  under  various 
Directives are divided on many authorities which is hard to coordinate and can hide some of the work being 
done. 

158 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Sweden 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended 
for human consumption under 
Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, 
including areas designated as 
vulnerable zones under 
Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive) 87  
Recreational waters, including 
areas designated as bathing 
waters under Directive 
76/160/EEC 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in 

Groundwater 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Territorial 

1253 

29 

58 

172 

489 

228 

9 

89 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There are only minor changes to  the number of Protected Areas of each type reported in  the 

second cycle compared to the first cycle; the most notable difference is a significant reduction 
in the number of Protected Areas designated under the Birds Directive88.  

Sweden reported little information on the monitoring of Protected Areas in the first cycle. The 
updated WISE reporting for the second cycle has facilitated the provision of more information 

on the number of monitoring sites. 

15.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation: Ensure the link between the Bathing Water Directive and the WFD 
in  the  second  RBMP  cycle.  Also  Sweden  should  ensure  better  justification  and 

application of exemptions, including linking water and nature legislation. 

87   Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

caused 
from 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

by 

88 Sweden subsequently clarified that there is significant overlap between Habitats and Birds Directive Protected 

Areas but each Protected Area has been reported with only one type.  

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Assessment: Information reported to WISE indicates that no exemptions from specific 

additional  objectives  set  for  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  have  been 
applied; though exemptions from WFD objectives are widely applied in surface waters 

in  Sweden.  In  terms  of  linking  water  and  nature  legislation,  work  appears  to  be  in 
progress to set appropriate specific additional objectives for Protected Areas related to 

Habitats and Birds stating that:  "Yes, some specific water objectives have been set to 
protect dependent habitats and species but work is still on-going to determine needs."  

The recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Identify  clearly  in  the  RBMPs  the  Protected  Areas  not  expected  to 

reach the more stringent objectives according to other Directives. 

Assessment: Sweden has set specific additional objectives for the  following Protected 

Area types: Article 7, Habitats, Birds and economically significant species (shellfish). 
Information  reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  no  information  is  available  on  whether 

these  additional  objectives  have  been  met  for  any  Protected  Area  type.  A  clear 
identification  of  Protected  Areas  which  will  not  reach  the  more  stringent  objective  is 

not available in the RBMPs. 

The recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Ensure the link between the Bathing Water Directive and the WFD 

in the second RBMP cycle. 

Assessment:  No  additional  objectives  or  measures  for  Protected  Areas  related  to 
Bathing Waters have been specifically reported in the second RBMPs89.  

The recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Clarify  that  all  water  bodies  used  as  drinking  water  abstraction 
sources are included in the Protected Areas, and measures that ensure compliance with 
Article 7 are included in the Programmes of Measures. 

Assessment: This  recommendation was made following an inconsistency  between the 
reported number of Protected  Areas for drinking water in  the first  RBMP (1099)  and 

89 Sweden clarified that it has taken the objectives from the Bathing Water Directive in to account in determining 
environmental objectives for associated water bodies but that the reporting schemas focus on information on 
water  bodies  associated  with  Shellfish  Directive,  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives,  and  waterbodies  used  for 
drinking water abstraction. 

160 

 
                                                      
later information from Sweden (1700). From the data reported to WISE in the second 

cycle,  there  are  approximately  256  surface  water  Protected  Areas  for  drinking  water 
abstraction  and  1010  groundwater  Protected  Areas  for  drinking  water  abstraction.  By 

way of comparison, 17 groundwater bodies and no surface water bodies were reported 
to  be  influenced  by  significant  pressure  ‘3.2  -  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  -  Public 

water  supply.’  It  is  not  possible  to  confirm  whether  this  recommendation  has  been 
fulfilled on the basis of information reported to WISE.  

161 

 
 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

16.1.1  Climate change adaptation 

Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs but it is stated that the guidance 
on  how  to  adapt  to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
No.  2490)  was  not  used.  The  specific  climate  change  aspects  have  been  considered  when 
checking the effectiveness of measures and in flood risk management. KTM 24 - "Adaptation 

to climate change" is not made operational to address significant pressures in any of the RBDs. 
No specific sub-plans addressing climate change have been reported in any of the RBDs. 

16.1.2  Effects and impacts of prolonged droughts, as well as related measures 

According to the 2012 Topic Report on Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a 
selection  of  European  Union  RBMPs91,  droughts  are  not  relevant  in  Sweden,  except  for  the 
Bothnian  Sea  and  North  Baltic  Sea  RBDs  which  are  facing  local  droughts.  No  exemptions 

have been applied following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 

States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts.No Drought Management Plans have 
been reported for Sweden. This situation is similar to the first RBMP (2012 Topic Report on 

Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a selection of European Union RBMPs).  

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  main  development  since  the  first  cycle  is  the  implementation  of  the  checking  of  the 

effectiveness  of  measures  in  relation  to  specific  climate  change  aspects  even  if  this  was  not 
done according to the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 2492. 

16.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM. 

90https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-

306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf 

91 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 
92https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-

306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  

162