COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Sweden Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2025-02-04
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, 4.2.2025  SWD(2025) 22 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans  Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Sweden Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)  Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2025) 2 final} - {SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} - {SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 27 final} - {SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 30 final} - {SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} - {SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}  
 
 
y
n
a
r
V
n
a
p
e
t
S

|

m
o
c
s
l

.

e
x
e
P
©

Country specific staff working document 

Sweden 

ENVIRONMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

Content ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

SECTION A: WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 4 

1. General info, member state characterisation ............................................................................................................. 5 

2. Horizontal aspects ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

2.1 Governance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District .............................................................................................................. 10 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 16 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 16 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 17 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 18 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 20 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 21 

3.6 What Sweden is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ................................................................... 22 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 23 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 24 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 26 

4.3 What Sweden is doing to combat pollution from agriculture ................................................................ 27 

4.4 What Sweden is doing to combat pollution from other sectors ........................................................... 28 

4.5  What  Sweden  is  doing  to  combat  significant  pressures  –  overall  assessment  of  the 
Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 29 

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 29 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Sweden ..................................................................................... 29 

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 31 

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 35 

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ............................................................................................ 36 

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ...................................................................................................................................... 36 

7.2 Flood risk management plans .................................................................................................................................. 37 

8. FD recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 

2 

 
 
 
 
3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SECTION A: 
WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

4 

 
 
 
1. General info, member state characterisation

Sweden is one of the largest EU countries (447 thousand square kilometres)1 with long coastline and 
thousands of lakes and rivers. Two third of its surface is covered by forests. The largest proportion 
of the 10.5 million inhabitants2 is living in the south and this area has numerous economic activities 
such as industry and agriculture compared to the north. The coverage of utilised agricultural area is 
almost 3 million hectares (6.6% of total area)3 out of which circa 20% is used for organic farming4.

Sweden is the EU Member State with the second highest amount of renewable freshwater resources 
up to almost 200 000 million cubic metres annually5. Sweden has five large river basin districts out 
of which two are merely national and three are transboundary. But one of the most notable features 
in the country is the large number of water bodies, namely 3 704 groundwater bodies and 23 813 
surface  water  bodies.  Groundwater  bodies  are  typically  post-glacial  small  and  confined  aquifers 
which are limited in depth6. Sweden is a country very rich in inland waters with numbers reaching 
7 454 lake water bodies and 15 695 river water bodies. There are also 654 coastal and 19 territorial 

1 Eurostat – Area by NUTS 3 region: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/fabcfca6-4abb-4a84-ac1c-
7bb335af436a?lang=en  
2 Eurostat – Population change – Demographic balance and crude rates at national level: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/DEMO_GIND__custom_7127262/default/table  
3 Eurostat - Utilised agricultural area in 2022: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tag00025/default/table  
4 Eurostat - Developments in organic farming in 2021:  
 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming 
5 Eurostat – Water statistics: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Water_statistics  
6 Fredén CE. 2002. The Swedish national atlas - Geology. 

5 

 
 
water bodies, comprising eastern parts of the North Sea and subsequently western parts of the Baltic 
Sea which is roughly divided into the Baltic Proper in the south and the Gulf of Bothnia in the north. 

Given  Sweden’s  population  number  and  distribution,  the  level  of  human  intervention in the  water 
system is limited which explains that for lakes and rivers, only 2.9% and 0.2% are heavily modified 
and artificial water bodies, respectively. On the other hand, the role of hydropower in the energy mix 
is important resulting to significant hydromorphological pressures on waters where it exists. 

Sweden is a top performer on many of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): for instance, 
Sweden’s green transition is relatively well advanced with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per 
capita, as most of the electricity supply comes from hydropower and nuclear energy, along with a 
growing contribution from wind power. However, it seems that the Swedish government spends a 
lower proportion of its expenditure on environmental protection than the average for the EU7.  

The household water use has steadily been decreasing compared to the 1990 and counting 132 litres 
/ inhabitant / day in 20208. 

Reporting 

The deadline for reporting the 3rd RBMPs was in March 2022. The Commission and the EEA together 
with Member States developed an electronic reporting system in WISE (Water Information System 
for  Europe).  Its  use  was  voluntary.  Some  Member  States  used  it  to  fulfil  their  obligations,  others 
reported the plans in pdf format. The cut-off date for the WISE e-reporting was September 2023 and 
the MS were assessed based on the datasets available by this date.  

By September 2023, Sweden has not submitted full electronic reporting. Therefore, the assessment 
is mainly based on the data mining of the pdf RBMPs. 

Despite the cut off dates for the production of this report, reporting continued, and, for the State of 
Water  report,  the  EEA  aggregated    the  results  available  by  July    2024  in  their  products  and 
dashboards available at WISE Freshwater web portal. 

7 European Commission – 2022 European Semester, Country reports - Sweden: 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2022-european-semester-country-reports_en  
8 Eurostat – Water statistics: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Water_statistics 

6 

 
 
 
 
Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures 

Surface 
Water 
Bodies 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

The total number of SWBs has increased by 8% since the 2nd RBMPs, from 21 987 to 23 813. 

100%

ECOLOGICAL 
STATUS 

50%

41%

37%

0%

2015 2021

The  monitoring  extent  has  reduced,  so  that  now  only  21%  of  SWBs  are  monitored  to  assess  ecological  status,  and  especially  rivers  are 
insufficiently covered.  

Despite of improvement of status, 59% of SWBs fail to achieve good ecological status / potential.  Especially coastal water bodies are under 
pressure, with 79% in less than good. Furthermore, only 2% of HMWBs and AWBs are in good ecological potential. By 2027, less than 50% of 
SWBs are expected to be in good ecological status.  

For ecological status / potential, Article 4(4) was applied to 13 607 (57%) SWBs and Article 4(5) to 588 SWBs (2.3%). Article 4(7) was applied 
to 3 SWBs. 

7 

 
 
100%

In total 9% of the water bodies (2 151) are monitored for chemical status covering all three matrices: water, sediments, and biota. 
Nevertheless, all 45 priority substances are monitored with a network set at a risk-based approach. 

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

50%

Sweden expects 100% of SWBs to fail good chemical status in 2027, which has been the case since the first RBMPs. The graph shows 
chemical status including ubiquitous substances. When excluding Mercury and PBDE, 96% to 99% of SWBs are in good chemical status. 

Exemptions under Article 4(4) have been applied to 3.6% of SWBs, and under 4(5) to all SWBs with the justification of "technical infeasibility" 
of measures against the uPBT pollution. 

0% 0%

0%

2015 2021

Ground 
Water 
Bodies 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

The number of groundwater bodies has increased by 12% since the 2nd RBMPs from 3 311 to 3 704. 

8 

 
 
 
The number of GWBs in less than good quantitative status has increased by 19 and totalling 28 GWBs (0.8%). Subsequently, 115 GWBs are 
at risk failing to achieve good quantitative status. Parallelly, the total number of GWBs has increased by 12%, due to redelineation which 
provides better information. Furthermore, 3.1% of GWBs are at risk of failing to achieve good quantitative status by 2027. 

Exemptions under the Article 4(4) have been applied to 0.9% of GWBs for quantitative status, and Article 4(7) to two GWBs. Exemptions 
under the Article 4(5) have not been applied. 

100%

99,7%

99,2%

QUANTITATIVE 
STATUS 

50%

0%

2015 2021

100%

97,7% 97,6%

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

50%

The chemical status of 44 GWBs has fallen from good to poor. Currently, 3 615 out of 3 704 GWBs (97.6%) are in good chemical status and 
89 GWBs (2.4%) are in poor chemical status. Furthermore, 150 GWBs (4%) are at risk of failing to remain in good chemical status by 2027.  

Exemptions are applied under Article 4(4) to 3.7% of GWBs for chemical status. Exemptions under the Article 4(5) have not been applied. 

0%

2015 2021

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Horizontal aspects 

2.1 Governance 

Sweden has organised the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) through different 
layers  of  management:  the  main  implementation  is  executed  by  five  River  Basin  District  (RBD) 
Authorities and 21 County Administrative Boards. In addition, the Swedish Agency for Marine and 
Water  Management  is  issuing  regulations  and  preparing  national  guidance.  The  River  Basin 
Management Plans (RBMPs) describe in more detail the role of all relevant Swedish authorities. 

Sweden has five large River Basin Districts (RBDs) from which two are merely national: North Baltic 
RBD (SE3), South Baltic RBD (SE4); and  three are transboundary: Bothnian Bay RBD (SE1) (shared 
with Finland and Norway), Bothnian Sea RBD (SE2) (shared only with Norway) and Skagerrak and 
Kattegat  RBD  (SE5) (shared  only  with Norway).  Additionally, in  the mountainous  area  bounded  to 
Norway, five small RBDs including 30 catchment areas are shared between these two countries, most 
of them having only a small part in the upstream country. These RBDs are managed by the competent 
authorities of the nearby large RBDs (see more detail in Table 2).  

There is an international agreement and a permanent cooperation body set up for the Bothnian Bay 
(SE1) with Finland and Norway. The only cooperation on joint Programme of Measures is conducted 
for the Torne River catchment area (part of the Bothnian Bay RBD, SE1). For other RBDs, Sweden and 
Norway  have  jointly  developed  a  strategy  for  implementing  the  WFD.  Furthermore,  Sweden  is  a 
contracting party of the Cooperation for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea 
(HELCOM)9. 

The timetable, work programme, consultation plan, overview of significant water management issues 
and the draft RBMPs were subject to public consultation for six months. Approximately 800 entities 
submitted their comments during the consultation period. Sweden also exploited water councils and 
advisory groups to promote active involvement of stakeholder groups. 

A total of five RBMPs for Sweden (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, North Baltic, South Baltic, Skagerrak, 
and Kattegat) were adopted in August 2022 and submitted to the Commission in September 2022. 
The reporting was delayed by 5 months compared to the provisions of the WFD and the electronic 
reporting was accomplished in May 2024. 

In  the  3rd  RBMPs,  the  Programmes  of  Measures  (PoMs)  are  coordinated  with PoMs  of  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) as well as the Flood Risk Management Plans. No information 
is provided on cooperation in the consultation of the three directives. 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District 

Sweden has delineated a very large number of water bodies (Table 2): 23 813 surface water bodies 
and  3 704  groundwater  bodies  (7  types).  The  surface  waters  include  lakes  (27  types),  rivers  (22 
types), and coastal waters (25 types), while there are no transitional waters. As the WFD requires 
Member  States  to  set  reference  conditions  to  different  types  (type-specific  reference  conditions), 
Sweden uses a different approach, namely an object-specific reference condition. In this approach, 
the reference conditions are set for individual water bodies and not for the whole  type of waters 
which provide more accurate and water body specific reference. According to the latest update of 

9 Cooperation for the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea: https://helcom.fi/  

10 

 
 
intercalibration  exercise  in  202410,  there  are  no  known  gaps  in  the  intercalibration  exercise  for 
Sweden. 

Table 1. Overview of Sweden‘s River Basin Districts (RBDs) 

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

Countries sharing RBD 

SE1 

Bothnian Bay (Bottenviken) 

120 900 
(128 100) 

SE1TO 

Bothnian Bay (international catchment area 
Torne River) (managed as part of SE1) 

25 420  
(25 500) 

SE2 

SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

SE5101 

Bothnian Sea (Bottenhavet) 

North Baltic Sea (Norra Östersjön) 

South Baltic Sea (Södra Östersjön) 

Skagerrak and Kattegat (Västerhavet) 

140 200 
(145 200) 

36 980 
 (44 200) 

54 920 
 (64 980) 

68 580 
 (71 690) 

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

450 

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

1 319 

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

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

192 

992 

FI, NO 

FI, NO 

NO 

- 

- 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Note: For the size of the RBD area, the surface area including coastal waters is indicated in brackets. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 2. Number of river and lake water bodies, transitional and coastal water bodies, and groundwater 
bodies. 

RBD Index 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 
Waters 

Territorial 
Waters 

Groundwater 
Bodies 

SE1 

4 904 

1 997 

113 

SE1TO 

- 

442 

SE2 

6 962 

3 690 

10 

85 

 - 

 - 

 - 

783 

- 

976 

10 Intercalibration gaps, update March 2024: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-
9964bbe8312d/library/588d243a-a12f-4d1f-9bf5-f5e31d352f37/details  

11 

 
 
SE3 

SE4 

SE5 

SE1102 

SE1103 

SE1104 

731 

428 

1 189 

506 

1 909 

833 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

SE5101 

32 

23 

167 

178 

111 

- 

- 

- 

0 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

642 

702 

598 

- 

- 

- 

3 

Total 

15 727 

7 919 

664 

19 

3 704 

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

As mentioned earlier, the level of human intervention on hydromorphological conditions seems 
quite limited as the numbers of heavily modified and artificial water bodies are 2.9% of total water 
bodies (668 water bodies) and 0.2% (38 water bodies), respectively (Figure 1). Sweden has not 
designated any heavily modified or artificial coastal waters. 

Figure 1. The proportion of natural, heavily modified, and artificial water bodies by water category and 
total. 

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

In the 3rd RBMPs, the total water use is estimated around 2 400 million cubic metres, with industry 
being the major user (74%), followed by households and services (23%) and agriculture (3%).  

Sweden provides well-advanced information of its water bodies. 

12 

 
 
The Water Information System of Sweden (VISS11) is a well-advanced map-based system providing 
all assessments at water body level and data related to the implementation of the Water Framework 
Directive. This system is a window to the information which can be used by public and experts. Figure 
2 shows a screenshot of the ‘Vattenkartan’ (Water map) in VISS. 

Figure 2. The Water Information System of Sweden (VISS) provides a variety of data for public and experts 
(screenshot of the Water Map). 

Source: VISS Water Information System of Sweden 

Pressures on surface waters 

Significant impacts on surface waters are eutrophication from nutrient pollution, physical changes in 
the water bodies, as well as impacts from chemical pollution and acidification. The main pressures 
are atmospheric deposition, dams  and other barriers, agriculture, industry, transport, and forestry. 
One of the main pressures on inland surface waters is caused by hydromorphological alteration very 
largely caused by hydropower production and water regulation as well as mill dams, remnants of 
timber rafting, canals, and bridges. Changes in the morphology, e.g., straightening and deepening of 
rivers, can cause changes in flow velocity and thus in the hydrological conditions. Regarding coastal 
waters, the activities altering morphology are waterborne transport and recreational boating.  

Hydropower is currently Sweden’s largest source of renewable energy and accounts for approximately 
45%  of  Swedish  electricity  generation  on  an  average  water  year12.  The  main  river  basins  for 
hydropower are Luleälven, Indalsälven, and Umeälven13. According to the Swedish Agency of Marine 
and Water Management, hydropower is the most extensive pressure on lake and river water bodies 

11 Water Information System of Sweden: https://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/  
12 Energimyndigheten – Vattenkraft: https://www.energimyndigheten.se/energisystem-och-analys/elproduktion/vattenkraft/  
13 Info om Svensk vattenkraft: https://vattenkraft.info/?page=5  

13 

 
 
 
in Sweden14. Almost 4 000 river water bodies and 1 000 lake water bodies are affected by water 
regulation or lack of connectivity. 

Agriculture affects the aquatic environment through, among others, nutrient leakage, and pesticide 
use. Sweden has identified agriculture as a major sector for the diffuse loads of nutrients on surface 
water bodies in all its river basin districts. In lakes and rivers, agriculture accounts for 28-37% of 
total nutrient load; and in coastal waters, the share of agriculture is 18-35% of total nutrient load. 
The excess of nutrients leads to eutrophication causing proliferation of algae blooms and oxygen 
depletion in both lakes and coastal waters. Problematic oxygen depletions in the Baltic Sea can be 
observed especially at the coast of Sweden15. 

Other sectors with diffuse nutrient pollution on surface waters can be traced to industry, traffic, and 
wastewater from households. Wastewater treatment plants and landfills are important point sources 
of chemical (including nutrient) pollution. According to the latest reporting under the Urban Waste 
Water Treatment Directive16, 97% of wastewater is treated and the cleaning is completely based on 
biological  treatment  with  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  removal.  Sweden  has  made  a  progress  in 
reduction of nutrients from urban wastewater treatment plants since 2000, especially for nitrogen 
which is amounting for a reduction of more than 4 000 tonnes per year from 2000 to 202017. 

The  excess  of  nutrients  discharged  into  the  surface  waters  leads  to  eutrophication  causing 
proliferation  of  algae  blooms  and  oxygen  depletion  in  both  lakes  and  coastal  waters.  Under  the 
Nitrates Directive reporting,  Sweden indicated that many monitoring points  at coastal and marine 
areas show surface waters as eutrophic (Figure 3). 

14 Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management - Towards sustainable hydropower in Sweden: 
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/towards-sustainable-hydropower-in-sweden.html  
15 Article by Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute ‘Den extrema syrebristen i Östersjön fortsätter’: 
https://www.smhi.se/nyhetsarkiv/den-extrema-syrebristen-i-ostersjon-fortsatter-1.169650  
16 WISE – country profiles on urban waste water treatment – Sweden: 
https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/countries/uwwt/sweden 
17 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Wastewater treatment in Sweden 2020: 
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/4acbd4/globalassets/media/publikationer-pdf/8800/978-91-620-8896-5.pdf  

14 

 
 
Figure  3.  Map  of  the  monitoring  points  showing  eutrophication  assessment  in  Sweden,  according  to  the 
reporting of the Nitrates Directive.18 

According  to  the  reporting,  regarding  other  chemicals  than  the  nutrients,  Sweden  recognises 
emissions  of  chemical  substances  into  surface  waters  without  knowledge  of  the  source  and  no 
further reasons can be found.  

Subsequently, the pressure of invasive alien species (IAS) on waters has not been assessed. In total, 
there  are  42  aquatic  species  of  EU  concern  in  Sweden19.  While  Sweden  introduces  a  national 
catalogue  of  measures  to  combat  terrestrial  IAS,  a  corresponding  catalogue  for  aquatic  IAS  is 
currently lacking, despite the fact that a large proportion of invasive species are aquatic. The RBMPs 
call for national measures to eradicate or to manage the IAS of marine and freshwater environments 
in long term. 

Pressures on groundwaters 

Significant impacts on groundwater emanate from chemical pollution (notably chloride and sulphate), 
nutrient pollution, pesticides from agriculture, and changed groundwater levels.  

Water abstraction is not identified as a significant pressure at the national or RBD level or even in a 
significant part of any RBD. However, there is a growing concern nationwide on the availability of 
water resources for drinking water supply during periods of droughts. 

18 NITRATES DIRECTIVE - Reporting Period 7 (2016-2019) – trophic status: 
https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/portal/apps/dashboards/cb6034c2a75e4df282f8a62f90c16caa   

19 EASIN - European Alien Species Information Network: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/  

15 

 
 
 
3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and 

climate change adaptation 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential 

Monitoring 

The monitoring of water bodies is carried out by national and regional authorities, municipalities, and 
private  organisations.  The  ecological  status  /  potential  including  biological,  physico-chemical  and 
hydromorphological quality elements, as well as river basin specific pollutants are monitored in 21% 
of  the  surface  water  bodies  (for  lakes  25%,  for  rivers  17%  and  for  coastal  waters  57%)  in  the 
surveillance and operational monitoring20. None of the coastal water bodies, lake water bodies and 
river  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  are  monitored  for  all  required  biological, 
hydromorphological or physico-chemical quality elements. A grouping methodology has been used 
where waters have the same natural conditions and the same impact profile, both in inland waters 
and in coastal waters. The RBMPs do not provide aggregated data on the coverage of each monitored 
quality element, nor their monitoring frequencies. They are also not describing the methodologies 
used to assess the ecological status. Nevertheless, the VISS11 service gives information on location 
of monitoring sites, as well as the measured parameters and their frequencies for each site. 

Status assessment 

The trends observed show a nuanced picture. A very slight improvement in the status of water bodies 
can be observed as the proportion of water between the current and previous status assessment. 
Figure  4  shows,  in  overall,  59%  of  (14 032)  the  surface  water  bodies  are  not  in  good  or  better 
ecological status or potential. The available data show that the water bodies with unknown status 
has increased without clear reason. 

20 There are two types of monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the status and which covers all water bodies 
at risk and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed rather at identifying impacts and long-term changes. 

16 

 
 
Figure 4. Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies (SWBs) in Sweden in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
RBMPs. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

When examining the data spatially, the status of waters is much better in the north than in the south 
of  the  country.  This  difference  is  most  likely  linked  to  the  higher  density  of  population  (largely 
concentrated  in  the  southern  cities  of  Stockholm,  Goteborg,  and  Malmö)  and  large  number  of 
pressures in the South. Regarding water categories, lakes are doing better with the highest proportion 
in  good  or  better  ecological  status  /  potential,  namely  51.5%.  For  rivers,  the  proportion  of  water 
bodies in good or better ecological status or potential is 33%. On the contrary, almost 80% of coastal 
water bodies are not in good ecological status. 

Against this  background,  Sweden  only  expects  a modest  improvement  of  the status  of  the  water 
bodies by 2027; indeed, it expects to improve good ecological status/potential from 41% to still less 
than 50% of all surface water bodies. Section 5.1 illustrates how Sweden makes use of exemptions 
in those water bodies which are not achieving good ecological or chemical status. 

To  bring  about  achieving  good  ecological  status,  the  RBMPs  indicate  that  the  annual  nutrient 
emissions should reduce by 688 tons of phosphorus and 4 770 tons of nitrogen from all sectors. The 
RBMPs do not seem to include a similar distance to target estimation for the hydromorphological 
impacts on surface waters resulting from dams, barriers, and locks. 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) 

As  mentioned  earlier,  compared  to  the  total  number  of  water  bodies,  the  proportion  of  heavily 
modified and artificial water bodies is relatively small in Sweden: 2.9% and 0.2% are heavily modified 
and  artificial  water  bodies,  respectively.  In  lakes,  there  are  265  heavily  modified  water  bodies 
(HMWBs) and two artificial water bodies (AWBs). In rivers, there are 403 HMWBs and 36 AWBs. All 
coastal water bodies are natural. Spatially, the heavily modified water bodies are mostly located in 
the northern parts of the country comprising most of the large rivers which are flowing from the 

17 

 
 
mountains to the sea. Hydropower production is the main activity which is leading to the designation 
of water bodies as heavily modified. 

Sweden  has  used  the  mitigation  measures method  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  (GEP)21. 
Regrettably,  according  to  VISS11,  only  ten  HMWBs  are  in  good  ecological  potential  (1.5%  of  all 
HMWBs). This means that 98.5% of HMWBs are in less than good ecological potential as follows: 17 
in moderate, 623 in poor and 18 in bad ecological potential. The artificial water bodies are mostly in 
moderate ecological potential (29 out of 38 AWBs) and only 4 are in good ecological potential. It is 
not clear, whether this is the result of low improvement in measures to tackle nutrient pollution or 
insufficient progress in measures to tackle the hydromorphological pressures, or both. 

All in all, it can be concluded that the anthropogenic intervention on hydromorphological conditions 
of the very numerous water bodies is limited; however, the physical changes consider most of the 
largest rivers and where they occur, the changes are quite acute and deteriorate considerably the 
ecological  potential  of  those  water  bodies.  On  the  other  hand,  the  updated  national  guidance  on 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  ecological  potential22  is  expected  to  increase  the  number  of 
HMWBs in the 4th RBMPs, allowing Sweden to emphasize more water uses and set lower objectives 
to the quality elements which are sensitive to impacts caused by these uses. Moreover, Sweden has 
introduced a proposal to amend the Swedish Environmental Code and the regulations related to it to 
ease  the  designation  of  water  bodies  as  heavily  modified  and  might  affect  setting  reference 
conditions to heavily modified water bodies.23 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status 

Due to a change in delineation methodology, the total number of groundwater bodies (GWBs) has 
increased by 12% from 3 311 in the 2nd RBMPs to 3 704 in the 3rd RBMPs. 

Monitoring 

It is positively noted that compared to the 2nd RBMPs, Sweden has improved its monitoring and its 
overall knowledge of the quantitative status. However, it remains that only 59 (1.6% of) groundwater 
bodies are monitored. Of particular concern is the fact that, according to VISS11, there seems to be 
no quantitative monitoring for several GWBs which are in poor quantitative status. For instance, the 
Island Gotland has no quantitative monitoring while the island features many groundwater bodies in 
poor  quantitative  status.  It  is  not  clear  how  Sweden  has  assessed  the  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater bodies without monitoring. 

Status assessment 

As depicted in Figure 5, most of groundwater bodies in Sweden are in good quantitative status. Up 
to  99.2%  (3 676)  of  groundwater  bodies  are  in  good  quantitative  status.  However,  punctual 
challenges  exist,  and  28  groundwater  bodies  are  not  meeting  the  objective  of  good  quantitative 
status and further 115 groundwater bodies are at risk failing to achieve good quantitative status in 
2027.  These  28  groundwater  bodies  are  all  showing  decreasing  water  levels  in  a  longer-term 

21 The definition of GEP can be derived by the reference method or by the mitigation measures method. More detail is 
provided in the CIS Guidance 37: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-
9964bbe8312d/library/e6036f6b-b277-4b0f-9ca3-861b4d1262a9/details  
22 Vägledning om kraftigt modifierat vatten (KMV) och ekologisk potential (7 December 2023): 
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.3d94dcba18c294cbf7e52f83/1702304330802/Vagledning-kraftigt-
modifierat-vatten-ekologisk-potential.pdf  
23 Press release - Förutsättningarna för vattenkraftens omprövning förbättras: 
https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/08/forutsattningarna-for-vattenkraftens-omprovning-forbattras2/  

18 

 
 
perspective. 17 of these 28 failing groundwater bodies also have salt intrusion, which is signalling 
over-abstraction. 3 of the 28 failing groundwater bodies are failing because of damage in dependent 
terrestrial ecosystems.  

Figure 5. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies (GWBs) in Sweden in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RBMPs. 

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

The  main  pressures  on  groundwater  quantity  are  caused  by  major  abstractions  and  for  some 
groundwaters also by quarries with excavation below the groundwater surface24. In 2016-2020, the 
average annual abstraction from groundwater is 383 million cubic metres, from which half is for 
public water supply and one fifth for private households, followed by mining and quarrying (13%), 
agriculture (10%), and manufacturing (6%)25. There has been a slight increase in total abstraction 
(6%); and despite having a small proportion, abstraction for manufacturing has almost doubled from 
16  million  cubic  metres  in  2016  to  27  million  cubic  metres  in  2020.  For  one  groundwater  body, 
Sweden reports in VISS that there are large numbers of unlicensed irrigation abstractions within the 
prevalence26. Furthermore, the strong abstractions near the coast are causing saline intrusion in the 
groundwaters  signing  of  over-abstraction,  and  also  having  an  influence  on  the  qualitative  status. 
Additionally, urban expansion in some regions leads to the risk of impeded infiltration causing lower 
groundwater levels. 

24 An example from the VISS, the groundwater body Mellersta Gotland – Roma: 
https://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/Waters.aspx?waterMSCD=WA96690582 
25 Eurostat - Annual freshwater abstraction by source and sector (not considering leakages or evaporation from the 
surfaces of reservoirs and canals after abstraction): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/6b68c4a2-a2f9-
499d-af2c-6625c2d8d657?lang=en  
26 The groundwater body Bjäre: https://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/Waters.aspx?waterMSCD=WA90181504  

19 

 
 
 
3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

Sweden  has  more  than  4 100  Natura  2000  areas  and  additionally  over  27 000  protected  areas 
designated  by  national  laws27.  All  in  all,  15%  of  land  and  15%  of  marine  waters  are  covered  by 
protected areas. However, the proportion of protected species and protected habitats in bad or poor 
conservation status is high; namely 51% in bad and 77% in poor status. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  certain  water  bodies  are  protected  under  the  EU  legislation.  For 
surface water bodies, protected areas have been designated under the Drinking Water, Bathing Water, 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  as  well  as  for  areas  designated  for  the  protection  of  economically 
significant  aquatic  species  (i.e.  aquaculture).  Additionally,  Nitrates  Vulnerable  Zones  and  Nitrates 
Sensitive Areas are designated under the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment 
Directive, respectively. For groundwaters, protected areas are designated under the Drinking Water 
and the Habitats and Birds Directives.  

Sweden has identified  all types of protected  areas which are associated with surface waters and 
groundwaters  (Table  3).  It  is  positively  deemed  that  the  overall  number  of  protected  areas  has 
increased compared to 2nd RBMPs, except for bathing areas, which has decreased. 

Positively noted, additional objectives have been identified and reported in the 3rd RBMPs for Natura 
2000 sites, for areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species, and 
for  drinking  water  areas  (surface  water  bodies).  The  additional  objectives  are  set  as  specific 
requirements that affect the Environmental Quality Standards for the Natura 2000 sites in question. 
Furthermore,  in  some  RBDs,  Sweden  has  set  specific  environmental  quality  standards  for  surface 
waters which have economically significant fish and mussel  species. However, for other protected 
areas, no information is provided on additional objectives. 

Table 3. Number of water bodies included to the protected areas listed in Annex IV to the WFD which are 
associated with surface and groundwaters in the 3rd RBMPs. 

Protected area 
type 

Drinking water 
zones 

79 

Bathing waters 

5 

Natura 2000 / 
Birds Directive 

1 262 

Natura 2000 / 
Habitats Directive  

4 111 

Number of Water Bodies Associated with protected areas in 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

219 

123 

778 

2 364 

2 

92 

179 

315 

1 478 

- 

35 

147 

27 Biodiversity Information System for Europe: https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/sweden  

20 

 
 
Nitrates 
Vulnerable Zones/ 
Nitrates Directive 

Nutrient-sensitive 
areas / Urban 
Wastewater 
Treatment 
Directive 

Protection of 
economically 
significant aquatic 
species 

1 933 

807 

439 

1 196 

15 687 

7 453 

654 

67 

132 

33* 

- 

- 

Note *: Mussel waters (shellfish) are only applicable for Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD. 

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

As regards to measures for the protection of areas designated for the abstraction of water intended 
for  human  consumption  (drinking  water  zones),  there  are  administrative  measures,  such  as 
supervision of abstractions as well as measures to prevent pollution and overexploitation. It is worth 
noting  that  Sweden  recognises  the  need  to  strengthen  the  national  efforts  to  establish  more 
protected areas for drinking water sources.  For other protected areas under the WFD,  there is no 
information reported on measures to achieve the objectives. 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures 

Back to 2014, the Swedish Agency of Marine and Water Management and the National Energy Agency 
suggested a national strategy to balance the need of improved ecological status with the need of 
hydropower28. Legislation has since then been adopted in 2019 and Sweden has introduced a national 
assessment  plan29  to  review  the permits  of  hydropower  plants  which  have  a significant  effect  on 
water bodies. The review process will take place in steps, and the last reviews of permits will start at 
the  earliest  in  2039.  Because  the  review  process  of  permits  is  scheduled  to  take  several  years, 
Sweden does not expect improvements to hydromorphological conditions to  be achieved by 2027 
and evidently not even by 2040. Because of scheduling of permit reviews over long time, there is a 
risk that obsolete and unprofitable hydropower plants are not prioritised while prompt actions in this 
category  might  considerably  improve  the  status  of  concerned  waters.  Furthermore,  Sweden  is 
frequently postponing the review schedule which is leading to even more delays in improvement of 
hydromorphological conditions of surface waters30,31. 

28 Strategi för åtgärder inom vattenkraften: https://www.havochvatten.se/data-kartor-och-rapporter/rapporter-och-andra-
publikationer/publikationer/2014-07-04-strategi-for-atgarder-inom-vattenkraften.html  
29 Nationell plan för omprövning av vattenkraft: 
https://www.energimyndigheten.se/fornybart/elproduktion/vattenkraft/nationell-plan-for-moderna-miljovillkor/  
30 Regeringen flyttar fram pausen av omprövningen av vattenkraftens miljötillstånd till 1 juni för vissa aktörer 
https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/03/regeringen-flyttar-fram-pausen-av-omprovningen-av-
vattenkraftens-miljotillstand-till-1-juni-for-vissa-aktorer/  
31 Omprövning av vattenkraftverkens miljötillstånd pausas 12 månader 
https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2022/12/omprovning-av-vattenkraftverkens-miljotillstand-pausas--12-
manader/  

21 

 
 
Ecological flows are considered in Sweden for achievement of environmental objectives of natural 
surface waters. The ecological flow is partly defined, but there are no examples of its application. This 
may change with the revision of the permits mentioned above.  

Regarding  changes  in  flow,  Sweden  introduces  measures  for  22%  of  water  bodies  (5 153);  and 
regarding changes in morphology and continuity, measures are introduced for 46% of water bodies 
(10 881). Some specific measures include ensuring minimum flow in natural river stretches affected 
by  hydropower,  fish  passes  and  ladders,  restoration  of  river  bed  affected  by  straightening,  and 
restoration of riparian area. 

In terms of basic measures, there is an authorisation and / or permitting regime in place to control 
physical modifications  according to  the WFD.  There is  also  a  register  of  physical  modifications  of 
impacting 
water  bodies.  According 
hydromorphological characteristics of waters need a permit. A permit may be limited in time, but 
periodical  review  is  generally  not  required;  however,  the  permits  can  be  updated  through  re-
examination, or they can be revoked by the court.  

the  Swedish  Environmental  Code,  all  activities 

to 

The Programmes of Measures introduce measures which reduce flood risks and hazards, some of 
which are nature-based solutions. These are e.g., improving spatial planning, improving water supply 
and stormwater management. Nature-based measures aim at preventing and mitigating the effects 
of floods and include, for instance, restoration of straightened and cleaned  rivers or stream beds, 
floodplains, and wetlands. 

3.6 What Sweden is doing for abstractions and water scarcity 

Although a water-rich country, Sweden is paying increasing attention to water scarcity in some of its 
RBDs  even  if  water  abstraction  is  not  identified  as  a  significant  pressure  in  general.  The  current 
estimation of the annual Water Exploitation Index Plus (WEI+) varies between 0 and 232, while water 
scarcity is generally considered to occur when the ratio of water abstraction to long-term average 
available water resources exceeds 20. 

In Sweden, water scarcity is identified as a significant pressure for limited number of groundwater 
bodies in southern parts of the country. For the Southern Baltic Sea RBD (SE4), the most affected by 
water  shortages,  a  management  plan33  and  programme34  on  water  scarcity  and  droughts  are 
available. According to the plan, ten surface water bodies (nine lake water bodies and one river water 
body) and 81 groundwater bodies are subject to significant pressures caused by water abstraction. 
Notably, some additional 36 water bodies will need a more in-depth assessment to identify potential 
pressures. 

The average annual freshwater (surface and groundwater) abstraction in Sweden for the period of 
2016-2020 amounted to 2.4 billion cubic metres of which the dominant sectors are manufacturing 
and public water supply with 51% and 36%, respectively26. Indeed, agriculture, mining and quarrying, 
and cooling do not exceed 5% of the annual abstraction. However, a comparison between 2020 and 

32 Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) from 2009 to 2019: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/8e6c6e33-3a7c-4c9a-b6c7-11710a1fbba0?lang=en  
33 Delförvaltningsplan mot torka och vattenbrist 2022-2027 Södra Östersjön: 
https://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/tjanster/publikationer/2022/forvaltningsplan/delforvaltningsplan-mot-torka-och-
vattenbrist-2022-2027-sodra-ostersjon.html  
34 Delåtgärdsprogram mot torka och vattenbrist 2022-2027 Södra Östersjön: 
https://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/tjanster/publikationer/2022/atgardsprogram/delatgardsprogram-mot-torka-och-
vattenbrist-2022-2027-sodra-ostersjon.html  

22 

 
 
2016  shows  a  significant  increase  of  abstraction  for  agriculture  (+28%)  as  well  as  mining  and 
quarrying (+18%). For other sectors, the changes in abstraction have been small. 

According to Swedish Environmental Code, the authorities are obliged to control abstraction through 
permits which include precautionary measures and mitigation measures to reduce the environmental 
impact. Sweden requires an authorisation for any abstraction from surface waters and groundwaters 
which  is  higher  than  the  usual  consumption  of  one  or  two  households.  Furthermore,  Sweden 
maintains  a  register  for  abstractions  and  impoundments,  which,  however,  is  not  covering  all 
abstractions and impoundments. 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change 

Sweden has set a requirement for all competent authorities to take the climate change into account 
within their activities. As previously mentioned, there is a management plan and programme for one 
RBD,  including  legally  binding  measures,  such  as  water  efficiency  guidance  for  companies  and 
industry;  guidance  for  supervision  of  water  abstraction;  guidance  on  reducing  vulnerability  of 
agriculture  and  horticulture  to  water  scarcity  through  water  efficiency,  storage  and  reuse;  and 
guidance for county administrative boards to facilitate water retention measures in drained areas 
and old peatlands. Sweden does not introduce measures to reduce water use at catchment area scale 
or to prioritise water use during drought periods. 

The RBMPs emphasize the importance of measures due to climate change but also highlight that 
more information and research are needed to better select the appropriate measures. Due to climate 
change, there is a risk of increased run-off of nutrients and pollutants into water and changes in flow 
regime, etc. 

Flood management 

The Floods Directive requires to consider the impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, 
and therefore in the preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and Flood Risk Management 
Plans (FRMPs). More information on these can be found in Section B. However, considering the close 
relationship  between  overall  water  management  and  floods  management  and  the  importance  of 
climate change on both, consideration climate change is jointly addressed in this section.  

Climate change was considered in the first FHRMs, but only for fluvial floods, as coastal floods were 
not  included.  The  MSB  used  the  updated  and  regionalized  information  from  the  Swedish 
Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI). The maps on the online flood map portal show, the 
extent of the flooded areas for the 100-year flood for the future climate. In addition, the 200-year 
flood scenarios considering climate change are also included on the portal. It is also noted in the 
Swedish second Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA)-report that there are two exceptions for 
the  Torne  river  and  the  Göta  river  which  do  not  have  climate  change  projected  100-year  floods. 
However,  as  of  October  2023,  the  Torne  river  also appears  with  a  100-year flood  under  a  future 
climate on the online flood portal35. For the 50-year floods, only today’s climate is used, as it was 
also  the  case  for  the  first  FHRMs.  The  Swedish  authorities  explain  that  for  the  high  probability 
scenario, the municipalities and the rescue services needed to have information of  more frequent 
floods for today’s climate in order to have information about the prevailing situation (such information 
was lacking in the previous flood inundation maps). 

35 Översvämningsportalen – Map of Haparanda along Torne River: 
https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/avancerade-kartor/hot-och-riskkartor/haparanda/tornealv/hotkartor.html  

23 

 
 
While  not  all  five  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  Sweden’s  national  strategy for  adaptation,  all  refer to 
coordination with regional strategies (county adaptation plans). The FRMPs also note that Sweden’s 
second FHRMs included a scenario considering climate change. The plans mention climate impacts 
on flooding, including flash floods related to cloudbursts and four of the five FRMPs either include 
cloudburst maps or refer to the development of such maps. The FRMPs assessed note that changes 
in the sources of flooding will be linked to sea-level rise and increased temperatures, which will lead 
to  changed  weather  and  rainfall  patterns.  The  Falun  FRMP  explains that  the  calculation  of  future 
flood levels involves the combination of critical factors such as rainfall, snowmelt, high soil moisture, 
high water levels in lakes and reservoir filling in regulated rivers36. 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring 

Sweden is monitoring chemicals in all three matrices: water, sediments, and biota. The monitoring for 
chemical status covers 4% of river water bodies, 17% of lake water bodies and 26% of coastal water 
bodies.  In  total,  only  9%  of  the  water  bodies  (2 151)  are  monitored,  out  of  which  surveillance 
monitoring is covering the largest proportion by 7% of water bodies. All 45 priority substances are 
monitored, and the monitoring network has been set following a risk-based approach implying that 
not all priority substances are analysed at all monitoring sites. The status is mostly derived based on 
medium and low confidence in classification and it is not clear what are the reasons for that.  For 
water bodies without monitoring, the status is assessed using grouping and extrapolation. 

For the priority substances that tend to accumulate in sediments, all 14 substances are monitored in 
sediments of coastal waters (25 monitoring sites) and eight substances in sediments of inland waters 
(15-30 monitoring sites depending on the specific substance). Regarding monitoring of substances 
which  accumulate  in  biota,  i.e.,  fish  and  molluscs,  8  out  of  14  substances  are  monitored  in  both 
coastal and inland waters (15-54 sites in coastal waters and 15-30 sites in inland waters depending 
on the specific substance). 

Status assessment - Evolution of chemical status of surface water bodies since the 2nd 
RBMPs 

No surface water body is in good chemical status in the 3rd RBMPs, and none is expected to be in 
good chemical status by 2027 (Figure 6) mainly due to two ubiquitous persistence, bioaccumulative 
and toxic (uPBT) chemicals: mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). The emissions of 
mercury  and  PBDE  can  be  challenging  to  tackle  due  to  long-range  atmospheric  transport  and 
deposition. These two substances have a very strong and dominating effect in the status of waters. 
Indeed, without these two substances, a totally different picture arises with 96% to 99% of surface 
water bodies, depending on the river basin district, are in good chemical status. In those failing cases 
(1-4%), the EQS exceedances are related to perfluorooctanesulfonic acids (PFOS), Cadmium, Nickel, 
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and tributyltin (TBT). 

36 SE2 Falun, Section 2.  

24 

 
 
Figure 6. Chemical status of surface water bodies (SWBs) in Sweden in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RBMPs  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Aspatial analysis shows that for Bothnian Bay (SE1), Bothnian Sea (SE2), and North Baltic Sea (SE3), 
the  main  substance  aside  from  mercury  and  PBDEs  causing  exceedances  of  EQS  is  PFOS.  For 
instance, in the Bothnian Bay RBD (SE1), PFOS is responsible for almost 70% of all failures in rivers 
and lakes which is significantly ahead of the next substances i.e., nickel in rivers and PAHs in lakes. 
For  the  Bothnian  Bay  (SE1)  and  Bothnian  Sea  (SE2)  RBDs,  dioxins  and  furans  are  the  primary 
substances  causing  EQS  failures  in  coastal  water  bodies,  as  PFOS  is  much  less  appearing  as  a 
substance causing failures of achieving good chemical status. 

Based on electronic reporting, Figure 7 shows the proportion of surface water bodies affected by top-
10 substances which are causing the failure to achieve good chemical status. 

25 

 
 
 
Figure 7. The top-10 Priority Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status in surface water 
bodies in Sweden with addition of two new priority substances. 

Note: The new priority substances according to the 2008/105/EU as amended by 2013/39/EU37 are marked with asterisk 
(*). 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring 

Alltogether, according to Annex 8 to the RBMPs, Sweden monitors 56% of groundwater bodies (1 850) 
for chemical status, from which 19% (639) are included in the surveillance monitoring, and for the 
rest, 3% of groundwater bodies (111) are included into the operational monitoring because of poor 
chemical status and 33% groundwater bodies (1 100) because of risk of deterioration from good to 
poor.  According  to  the  regulation  on  environmental  quality  standards  in  groundwaters38,  all 
substances  causing  risk  of  deterioration39  are  included  in  monitoring  of  groundwaters.  The 
methodology  for  assessing  chemical  status  of  groundwaters  considers  in  addition  to  the  general 
chemical  quality  elements  also  intrusions  of  salts  or  other  pollutants  as  well  as  the  impact  on 
groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems. 
There is ongoing work on assessing Natura 2000 areas and their sensitivity to be integrated in the 
assessment of chemical status of groundwaters. 

Status assessment 

It  is  noted  very  positively  that,  according  to  the  data  provided,  the  vast  majority  of  groundwater 
bodies are in good chemical  status. There are only 2.4% of groundwater bodies in poor chemical 
status and another 4% are at risk of failing to remain in good chemical status by 2027. Spatially, no 
concentration of groundwaters in poor chemical status can be deemed and they are spread across 
Sweden. Figure 8 depicts that the development of the chemical status has been stable, and no further 

37 Directive 2008/105/EC as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU added 12 new substances i.e. numbered 34 to 45 to the 
priority substance list. For the 3rd RBMP, Member States have only had the obligation to monitor them. Compliance with 
the Environmental Quality Standard values for these 12 new priority substances will be assessed in 2027. 
38 Sveriges geologiska undersöknings föreskrifter om miljökvalitetsnormer och statusklassificering för grundvatten: 
https://resource.sgu.se/dokument/om-sgu/foreskrifter/sgu-fs-2013-2.pdf  
39 Substances in GWD Annex I and Annex II (Part B) and core parameters in WFD Annex V Section 2.4.2 

26 

 
 
 
deterioration occurs, but it can also be seen that no real progress emerges in the groundwater bodies 
that fail to achieve good chemical status.  

There are many pollutants which are causing failure of good chemical status in groundwaters, from 
which the top 5 are environmental toxins, chloride, sulphate, nitrogen compounds (e.g., nitrate, nitrite, 
and ammonium) and phosphate. The sources of these pollutants are not explained in detail. 

Figure 8. Chemical status of groundwater bodies (GWBs) in Sweden in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
RBMPs. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

4.3 What Sweden is doing to combat pollution from agriculture 

Sweden has a small share of agricultural land compared to other European countries. Agricultural 
land is covering only 8.8% of total surface area40. As already mentioned, Sweden has also a relatively 
high  coverage  of  organic  farming  which  contributes  to  lower  nutrient  discharges.  Sweden  has 
calculated that to reach good ecological status / potential by 2027, the annual nutrient load from 
agriculture  needs  to  be  reduced  by  385  tons  of  phosphorus  and  by  1 600  tons  of  nitrogen.  This 
translates to one-third reduction from total required nitrogen load reduction and over half of required 
phosphorus load reduction (see total reduction need in section 3.1). The planned measures to tackle 
pollution from agriculture are planned until 2033 but they are expected to yield only about two-third 
of the nutrient reduction needed to achieve good status. 

For groundwaters, no information is provided regarding agricultural pollution even though the two 
top  polluting  chemicals  are  nitrogen  and  phosphorus.  According  to  the  reporting  for  the  Nitrates 
Directive,  the  high  concentrations  of  nitrogen  in  groundwater  from  agricultural  origin  are  mainly 

40 Land cover and change accounts 2000-2018: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/land-cover-and-
change-statistics  

27 

 
 
 
detected in a few areas in the South of Sweden41. Regarding pesticides which are impacting mainly 
groundwaters, the substances analysed in groundwaters are banned and no longer in use. 

To  support  measures  to  tackle  agricultural  pollution,  the  Swedish  CAP  strategic  plan  2023-2027 
introduces a funding of EUR 1.3 billion to support environmental  and climate objectives including 
implementation of environment-friendly practices as well as raising awareness among farmers on 
these issues42. According to an overview of the Swedish CAP43, the minimum requirements for farmers 
involve, among others, buffer strips along water bodies, increased soil cover, and crop rotation. As an 
example, the support of 84 000 hectares has been introduced to maintain wetlands and ponds. 

In the RBMPs, Sweden indicates that it is necessary to fund the measures over two planning periods 
until the year 2033. This would mean that Sweden is not expecting achievement of environmental 
objectives of all water bodies by 2027. The agriculture sector finances 30% of the cost of measures 
and the rest is funded by the CAP and / or other public support. The legally binding measures in the 
Programme of Measures are directed to the regional authorities and municipalities which implement 
the measures themselves or require relevant polluters or private actors to take measures. National 
measures are funded by national budgets, while the municipalities fund the measures that are under 
their  responsibilities.  The  measures  which  are  carried  out  by  the  farmers  are  subsidised  mainly 
through the CAP. 

4.4 What Sweden is doing to combat pollution from other sectors 

As  regards  tackling  pollution  from  non-agricultural,  diffuse  pollution,  both  nutrients  and  other 
chemicals,  can  be  traced  to  industry,  mining  and  quarrying,  transportation,  and  households. 
Wastewater treatment plants and landfills are important point sources. 

Sweden  introduces  several  measures  to  reduce  and  avoid  industrial  discharges;  to  upgrade 
wastewater treatment plants; to prevent and control pollution from urban areas and transport;  to 
remediate  contaminated  soils;  to  prevent  and  control  pollution  from  forestry;  and  to  prevent 
acidification. 

In practice, all concrete measures are implemented at a water body level, specified by the relevant 
authority. For example, discharge permits are subject to review and appropriate requirements are 
added to comply with the stricter objectives. For nutrients, Sweden has set reduction targets covering 
nitrogen and phosphorus for various sectors at water body level.  

Since the population in some regions is quite scattered, small sewage systems and non-connected 
dwellings  stand,  depending  on  the  river  basin  district,  for  24-35%  of  the  nutrient  loads  in inland 
waters  and  for  10-26%  in  coastal  waters.  Thus,  the  measures  to  tackle  nutrient  pollution  are 
improving treatment processes and upgrading facilities. Beyond nutrients, there is no overview for 
individual substances causing chemical pollution, so it is not possible to assess the expected progress 
towards closing the gap for specific chemical substances. 

41 Nitrates concentration in groundwater, reporting for the Nitrates Directive: 
https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/portal/apps/dashboards/cb6034c2a75e4df282f8a62f90c16caa  
42 Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans (2023-2027): https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-
policy/cap-overview/cmef/regulation-and-simplification/mapping-and-analysis-cap-strategic-plans_en 
43 At a glance: Sweden’s CAP Strategic Plan: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1704d861-9b01-4e32-
9d4c-1aea53896a51_en?filename=csp-at-a-glance-sweden_en.pdf  

28 

 
 
4.5 What Sweden is doing to combat significant pressures – overall 

assessment of the Programmes of Measures 

The 3rd RBMPs contain 57-60 measures depending on the river basin district. Most measures (86%) 
are the same as in the 2nd RBMPs, very few are new (13), and some have been discontinued (9). So, 
there is a very considerable continuity in the choices made. Some of the new introduced measures 
pertain to prevention of emissions of substances which are causing failure to achieve good chemical 
status in groundwater. Roughly half of the measures (29) constitute basic measures and the other 
half  are  supplementary  measures  under  Article  11  WFD.  Regrettably,  Sweden  has  not  made  a 
comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, and prioritisation of single measures has been given to 
the responsibility of the local authorities. 

5. Exemptions and economics 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Sweden 

As  the  good  status  has  not  been  achieved  in  all  water  bodies,  Sweden  has  applied  a  significant 
number  of  exemptions.  Figure  9  shows  the  use  of  exemptions  according  to  Art.  4(4)  and  4(5)  in 
Sweden and Table 4 shows in more detail the number of exempted groundwater bodies and surface 
water  bodies.  In  addition  to  national  guidelines  for  using  exemptions44,45,  Sweden  has  provided 
detailed and comprehensive justifications of used exemptions at a water body level.  

Regrettably,  the  main  change  since  the  2nd  RBMPs  is  the  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of 
exemptions  applied  under  Art.  4(4)  WFD.  For  groundwaters,  the proportion  of  used  exemptions  is 
limited but still has increased significantly; for quantitative status it has increased from 7 to 34 GWBs 
and  chemical  status  from  76  to  137  GWBs.  For  surface  waters,  a  comparison  cannot  be  directly 
made on the readily available information. 

For the exemptions under Art. 4(5) WFD, it must be highlighted that mainly because of the presence 
of Mercury and PBDE, Sweden is setting lower environmental objectives for the chemical status in all 
surface water bodies. Sweden considers that the achievement of good status is impossible, because 
the cause of negative effects is unknown, there is no known technical solution, or the cause is due to 
lack of actions by other countries. 

44 Kompletterande riktlinjer för miljökvalitetsnormer och undantag 2021-2027: 
https://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/ReferenceLibrary/55080/VM_Kompletterande-riktlinjer-MKN-undantag.pdf  
45 Vägledning om förlängd tidsfrist och mindre stränga krav : 
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.1d23b59c190125a43f2dbc26/1719485317870/V%C3%A4gledning%20om%
20f%C3%B6rl%C3%A4ngd%20tidsfrist%20och%20mindre%20str%C3%A4nga%20krav.pdf  

29 

 
 
Figure 9. The use of exemptions under Art. 4(4) and 4(5) WFD in surface water bodies 
(SWBs) and groundwater bodies (GWBs) in Sweden. 

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

4(4) SWBs

4(4) GWBs

4(5) SWBs

4(5) GWBs

quantitative status

chemical status

ecological status

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

Table 4. The use of exemptions in Sweden in the 3rd RBMPs. 

Article  Groundwater bodies (GWBs) 

Surface water bodies (SWBs) 

4(4) 

34 GWBs for quantitative status (0.9%) from 7 
GWBs in the 2nd RBMPs 

13 607 SWBs for ecological status / potential 
(91.9%)  

137 GWBs for chemical status (3.7%) from 76 
GWBs in the 2nd RBMPs 

846 SWBs for chemical status (3.6%) from 385 
SWBs in the 2nd RBMPs 

4(5) 

Not applied 

588 SWBs for ecological status / potential (2.5%)  

23 813 SWBs for chemical status (100%) from 
23 161 SWBs in the 2nd RBMPs 

4(6) 

Not applied 

Not applied 

4(7) 

2 GWBs (quantitative status) 

3 SWBs (ecological status) 

GWD 
6(3) 

Not applied 

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs 

- 

30 

 
 
5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery 

Sweden defines water services as water supply and waste water treatment by municipal utilities. In 
addition, other uses are including water abstraction, pollution and physical pressures by individual 
households, agriculture, or industry. 

While an updated economic analysis is provided, the 3rd RBMPs lack information about the progress 
made since the 2nd RBMPs. In conclusion of the RBMPs, the following topics under Annex III to the 
WFD were explicitly reported: 

- 

- 

- 

Long-term  forecasts  of  water  demand  differentiated  over  industry,  households,  and 
agriculture. 
Volume  estimates  associated  with  the  various  water  uses  (industry,  households,  and 
agriculture) for 2010 and 2015. 
Estimates of relevant investments including forecasts of such investments46.  

The RBMPs show that water prices (user tariffs) provide an incentive for an efficient water use. The 
RBMPs indicate that financial cost recovery measures were implemented for water services and the 
cost recovery rates are calculated at the municipal utility level indicating a full recovery of all costs. 
This could be considered to imply some degree of cost recovery, but any remaining pollution costs 
are not recovered. 

There  is  no  specific  evaluation  conducted  to estimate  environmental  and  resource  damage  costs; 
instead, the RBMPs present estimates of the value of clean water to contextualize the costs of the 
Programme of Measures. 

Sweden's  total  environmental  taxes,  including  taxes  related  to  water,  in  2019  amounted  to 
approximately SEK 101 billion. While the taxes on pesticides amounted to SEK 126 million, there is 
no clarification how and if these or other environmental taxes are used to achieve good status of 
surface waters and groundwaters.  

The Environmental and Resource Costs (ERC) of water services are incorporated through legislation, 
emphasizing polluters covering these costs through measures in the Programme of Measures and 
existing pollution legislation. Agriculture is an exception from this principle. The RBMPs state that the 
Polluter  Pays  Principle  has  been  applied  for  all  sectors  apart  from  agriculture.  Indeed,  there  the 
pollution mitigation measures are subsidised mainly through the CAP. 

6. WFD recommendations 

Recommendations - Sweden should: 

1.  Address the identified lack of compliance of achieving good status by increasing the level of 
ambition and reducing the compliance gap as much as possible until the next reporting cycle; 

2. 

Increase  the  investments  and  ensure  adequate  financing  in  prevention  and  restoration  to 
ensure achievement of good status as required by the Directive e.g., by making better use of 
the  ‘polluter-pays  principle’  and  by  eliminating  environmental  harmful  subsidies  whilst 

46 Given that the water demand is not estimated to change, there are limited investments related to the forecast. Costs 
associated with the Programmes of Measures have been estimated including costs related to water services. 

31 

 
 
ensuring affordable, just and implementing fair pricing mechanisms for all water users in line 
with Article 9 WFD. This should be based on a robust economic evaluation of measures to 
improve the cost-effectiveness analysis and the prioritisation of measures as well as a better 
estimation of the investments applied as well as the funding needs; 

3. 

Identify  and  put  in  place  all  basic  measures  and  necessary  supplementary  measures  to 
reduce existing persistent environmental challenges (pressures) preventing the achievement 
of  good  status  as  those  pressures  will  be  aggravated  by  climate  change  (e.g.,  pollution 
concentrates in times of less water availability). 

This implies, for example: 

a.  Reduction of nutrient pollution, especially from agriculture, in all river basin districts to 
achieve the objectives of WFD, MSFD and ND with particular focus on the vulnerability of 
the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, the ambition of reducing annual nutrient loads for agriculture 
should be raised from approximately 75% to 100%.; 

b.  Phasing out or prevention of the emissions of most relevant priority substances and rivers 
basin specific pollutants (namely mercury and PBDE as well as perfluorooctanesulfonic 
acids (PFOS), Cadmium, Nickel, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and tributyltin (TBT)); 

c.  Further  prevention  and  reduction  of  point  source  pollution  to  address  nutrients  and 
priority  substances  and  river  specific  pollutants  e.g.,  by  reviewing  existing  permits  for 
point source emissions to lower pollutant loads; 

d.  Expanding  the  efforts  on  nature-based  solutions  including  re-naturalisation  and 
ecosystem restoration which will reduce the hydromorphological pressures on its water 
bodies (e.g., reducing pressures from agricultural drainage); 

e.  Stepping  up  efforts  to  improve  river  continuity,  ensuring  minimum  ecological  flows, 
improve  the  general  hydrological  situation  also  in  cooperation  with  neighbouring 
countries; 

f.  Reviewing permits for hydropower plants and the implementation of measures to tackle 

modifications to hydrological and physical characteristics of surface waters; 

g.  The  review  of  permits  for  hydropower  plants  and  the  implementation  of  measures  to 
tackle modifications to hydrological and physical characteristics of surface waters should 
be accelerated; 

h. 

Including a clear provision on periodical review of abstraction and impoundment permits 
as well as other permits related to hydromorphological changes and describing how this 
review is implemented in the following RBMPs; 

i.  The use of abstraction permits and fees for all water users, preventing illegal abstraction, 
monitoring the actual abstracted amounts, and harmonisation of the inconsistent use of 
exemptions from water fees with the aim to ensure a balance between abstraction and 
recharge of water bodies in which withdrawals take place, with the aim of achieving good 
quantitative status of groundwaters and good hydrological conditions of surface waters; 

j.  Setting  specific  measures  to  achieve  the  additional  objectives  for  all  protected  areas 

under relevant Directives and ensuring their link to the WFD implementation. 

32 

 
4.  Enhance the consideration of climate change in all RBMPs and / or develop regional drought 
management plans where droughts are foreseen to causing problems to the economics and 
society.  Although  not  explicitly  required  by  the  Directive,  failure  to  do  so  will  make  it 
increasingly difficult to achieve the Directive’s objective and, in some case, even lead to a 
deterioration of waters where progress has been achieved; 

5. 

Improve further governance and better coordinate between the different administrative levels 
and  authorities  dealing  with  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  other  related  pieces  of 
legislation.  This  also  includes  removing  obstacles  identified  in  the  implementation  of 
measures, such as insufficient administrative capacities and resources; 

Moreover, Sweden should: 

a. 

Improving the work on international River Basin Management Plans for the Torne River 
Basin; 

b.  A joint consultation of the River Basin Management Plans and the Flood Risk Management 

Plans; 

c. 

Improving the comparability of status assessment with other EU countries, specifically 
regarding  the  assessment  of  physico-chemical  and  hydromorphological  conditions 
related to their sensitive biological quality elements. 

6.  Further close knowledge gaps and improve data availability, access to data, as well as data 
quality and comparability by harmonising methods and electronically collected data across 
river basin districts and marine regions, on monitoring, assessments, projections, economic 
assessment, etc. and make all data openly available through timely publication in line with 
the requirements of the Open Data Directive and INSPIRE Directive; 

This implies immediate actions: 

a.  Strengthening the monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements 
and chemicals 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 
and chemical status; 

b.  Developing an enhanced and robust quantitative monitoring to improve the knowledge 
of groundwaters in poor quantitative status or at risk failing to achieve good quantitative 
status; 

c.  Developing  chemical  status  monitoring  programmes  to  ensure  all  relevant  priority 

substances (including mercury) and River Basin Specific Pollutants are identified; 

d.  Providing  a  detailed  quantitative  assessment  of  the  additional  need  for  measures  to 

address nutrients, pesticides, and pollution from all the sectors in all RBDs; 

e.  Assessing how the planned measures will close the gaps to good status. This will allow 
to address all point pollutions with concrete measures and better prioritise its measure 
at water body level; 

This also implies actions for the next RBMPs: 

f.  Completion  of  the  inventory  of  chemical  substances  which  are  corresponding  to  the 

available emission data for all substances according to the CIS Guidance 28; 

33 

 
g.  Developing  indicators  to  identify  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 

groundwaters; 

h. 

Improving the methodology for establishing ecological flow; 

i.  Completion of designation of protect areas linked to drinking water abstraction; 

7. 

Improve the transparency and useability of the RBMPs; 

In particular:  

a.  A clear description how the confidence of the chemical monitoring of surface waters has 

been assessed.; 

b.  A clear description of procedure and the criteria to assess the status of various quality 
elements  (biological,  general  physico-chemical,  river  basin  specific  pollutants,  and 
hydromorphological). 

34 

 
 
 
SECTION B: 
FLOODS DIRECTIVE 

35 

 
 
 
7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) 

The Directive requires each Member State to scan its territory for flood risks, assess the potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic  activity,  identify  the  significant  risks,  map  the  flood  extent  and  the  potential  adverse 
consequences, and take measures to reduce the flood risk. These activities are reflected in (a) the 
preliminary  flood  risk  assessments,  or  PFRAs  (including  the  identification  of  areas  of  potential 
significant flood risk, or APSFRs), (b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs, and (c) 
the establishment of flood risk management plans, or FRMPs. 

There are ten Units of Management (UoMs) in Sweden, which are the same as the Water Framework 
Directive’s River Basin Districts (RBD), but APSFRs have been identified in six. Fluvial and sea water 
floods are considered as potentially significant sources of flooding in Sweden. Sweden has designated 
25 APSFRs. Sweden had used advanced and detailed modelling to incorporate climate change into 
its second preliminary flood risk assessments, the calculations are based on a method described in a 
report from 2011. 

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps 

Sweden is using an online map portal47 for their FHRMs. FHRMs were prepared at the national level. 
Maps for floods with low probability (1/200 years), with medium probability (1/100 years) and with 
high probability (1/50 years, but not for coastal floods) are provided. The maps show flood extent, 
water depth and number of inhabitants. Flood risk maps are based on the flood hazard maps and 
show which land uses and objects are affected by the flood events:  

- 
- 
- 
- 

economic activity 
type of land use where the economic activity takes 
sites with environmentally hazardous activities (Miljöfarlig verksamhet)48 
protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC. 

Since the first FHRMs, new and improved digital elevation data has been used in the flood hazard and 
risk assessments and the production of the maps. Indeed, the maps were earlier based on elevation 
data of 50x50m resolution, while now all maps are based on elevation data of 2x2m resolution with 
new  national  altitude  data,  providing  an improved  level  of  detail.  Flood  maps show  the extent  of 
inundated  areas  for  several  different  flood  alternatives  in  the  future,  as  well  as  climate  change 
adapted 100-year and 200-year discharges. In the second FHRM, maps for coastal flooding have also 
been produced and are shown on the online flood portal49.  

In terms of changes of contextual information, i.e., the way in which information about the maps is 
conveyed to the public, since the first FHRMs, there has been progress with the harmonisation of the 
categories of the legends, e.g., water depth, and potential impacts. 

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since the first FHRMs, as 
coastal flooding was not included in the first FHRMs, this information has been added to the online 
flood portal in the second FHRMs. 

47 Hot- och riskkartor: https://gisapp.msb.se/Apps/oversvamningsportal/avancerade-kartor/hot-och-riskkartor.html 
48 These activities do not explicitly refer to the terms Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), but in the documentation 
provided by Sweden on EIONET it is explained that this is how these activities are described and covered.  
49 Översvämningsportalen: https://gisapp.msb.se/apps/oversvamningsportal/index.html  

36 

 
 
In terms of changes in administrative responsibilities regarding preparation of flood risk maps, during 
the first FHRMs, the County Administrative Boards were responsible for producing risk maps. In the 
second FHRMs, the MSB (the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, the competent authority in Sweden 
for flood risk management)  facilitated the work by producing the basis for the risk maps using a 
common approach. The risk maps were reviewed by the County Administrative Boards, which made 
corrections where necessary, produced tabular data and finalised them. They also carried out further 
coordination on this issue with the municipalities. Hence, for the second FHRMs, the MSB also took a 
more active role in the production of the risk maps (not just the hazard maps). 

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood hazard and risk 
maps, reference is made to section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’. 

7.2 Flood risk management plans 

Objectives and measures 

There are 25 FRMPs in Sweden from which 5 were assessed. The FRMPs can be downloaded from a 
web page on the dedicated floods portal of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)50. Sweden 
has set four overarching national objectives, and they address the potential adverse consequences 
of  floods.  The  FRMPs  assessed  have  then  set  detailed  objectives,  classified  in  three  types  of 
objectives: performance, measure-oriented, and knowledge. Two of the five FRMPs assessed include 
knowledge objectives to improve the information base and in-depth knowledge on flood risks. All five 
FRMPs include measures for emergency planning, as well as objective and/or measures to strengthen 
public awareness. One of the four national overarching objectives addresses adverse consequences 
on human health, economic activity, environment, and cultural heritage.  

All five FRMPs identify measures. In addition, Sweden has reported 929 measures. All five FRMPs 
assessed  list  the  priorities  of  their  measures,  and  Sweden  has  reported  the  priorities  for  all  its 
measures  disaggregated  into  following  categories:  critical  (125  measures,  13  %),  very  high  (175 
measures, 19 %), high (461 measures, 50 %), moderate (142 measures, 15 %), low (26 measures, 
3 %). The FRMPs provide little information, however, on the methods used to prioritise measures. All 
five FRMPs provide an overview of the approach to monitoring the progress of implementation of 
their measures. 

One  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  provides  information  on  the  costs  of  measures.  The  only  plan  that 
mentions specific sources of funding is the Karlstad FRMP, which states that for the measures to be 
implemented by the County Administrative Board, the existing budget is sufficient. For measures for 
the  Karlstad  Municipality,  funding  is  covered  by  the  existing  budget,  and  that  potential  external 
financing  may  be  possible  without  mentioning  specific  sources51.  The  other  FRMPs  do  not  discuss 
funding sources52. Two of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on methods for cost-benefit 
analysis  (CBA):  structural  measures  undergo  CBA  when  they  are  in  the  production  phase  and 
structural measures must have a permit according to the Environmental Act. The FRMPs assessed 
include objectives for nature conservation, and two specify this in their measures. Sweden reported 
64 natural flood management measures. These are found in two of the five RBDs. Three of the five 
FRMPs provide information on nature-based solutions that can contribute to water retention. Sweden 

50 Översvämningsportalen – Riskhanteringsplaner: https://gisapp.msb.se/apps/oversvamningsportal/avancerade-
kartor/riskhanteringsplaner.html  
51 SE5 Karlstad, Section 6. 
52 Sweden’s reporting to EIONET notes that energy companies, water service companies and property owners, among 
others, are responsible for some measures (see section 4.7 below). Consequently, they may also be responsible for 
funding measures, though this is not specified.  

37 

 
 
reported that WFD objectives were considered in all RBDs. Three of the FRMPs assessed provide some 
information on coordination with the WFD. Sweden reported 579 prevention measures to EIONET (62 
%  of  all  measures);  175  protection  measures  (19  %  of  all  measures);  and  140  preparedness 
measures  (15  %  of  the  total).  All  five  FRMPs  include  measures  for  emergency  planning  and  civil 
protection.  Sweden  reported  89  measures  to  remove  and  prevent  receptors  in  flood  risk  areas, 
something  not  usually  seen  in  other  Member  States.  Three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  identify 
measures for spatial planning. 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide an overview of the extent to which the objectives in the 
respective first FRMPs were achieved. Three of the five assessed FRMPs describe in more detail, either 
in tables or in text, the progress made on the objectives from the first FRMPs53. The second FRMP for 
Falun states that the objectives set in the first FRMP have mostly been achieved. In the second FRMP 
for  Stockholm,  a  table  categorises  the  objectives  of  the  first  FRMP  as  either partly  achieved,  still 
under implementation, or not implemented. Among the eight objectives related to human health, six 
are partly achieved. The two objectives related to the environment are both partly achieved. Among 
the five objectives related to economic activities, all five are partly achieved. The objective towards 
cultural  heritage  is  achieved.  In  the  second  FRMP  for  Karlstad,  a  table  lists  the  16  performance 
objectives of the first FRMP, indicating if the progress towards achieving each has a positive trend 
(the  case  for  eight  objectives)  or  no  change  (eight  objectives).  There  is  no  change  for  the  three 
environmental  objectives and  the  three  objectives for  cultural  heritage.  For  the  two  objectives  on 
economic activities, there is a positive trend for one and no change for the other. The Haparanda 
FRMP provides progress of measures set in the first FRMP. In the FRMP for Kristianstad, no specific 
information was found on the progress of the objectives from the first period (because the County 
Administrative Board decided to cancel the first FRMP and replace it with the second FRMP). 

Sweden  reported  the  progress  of  all  measures.  The  majority  of  measures  were  reported  as  not 
started (566 measures, 61 %). On the other hand, 30 % of all measures were reported as ongoing 
construction (283 measures). 64 measures were reported as in preparation (7 % of all measures), 
Sweden reported that 92 % of recovery and review measures as not started, as well as 81 % of 
protection measures, 69 % of preparedness measures, and 52 % prevention measures (in part due 
to new APSFRs and the addition of the coastal flooding information). Many of the measures are still 
in  progress,  partly  due  to  the  long  timespan  of  the  measures,  and  due  to  the  priority  order  of 
measures. The progress was reported in the following way:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

Haparanda: Among the 13 measures in the first FRMP, six measures have been implemented, 
three have not started, two were in implementation, and three are continuously implemented.  
Falun: The progress towards the implementation of the measures is described qualitatively. 
the  FRMP  mentions  eight  implemented  measures,  and  other  measures  that  are  either 
ongoing or about to start. The FRMP also lists two additional measures that were not included 
in the first FRMP but are relevant for the achievement of its goals that were implemented.  
Karlstad: The progress towards the implementation of the measures is categorised as either 
implemented/in progress (four measures), paused (two measures), or not implemented (two 
measures).  
Stockholm: 23 measures are in progress, and most of these are included in the second FRMP. 
One measure has been fully implemented, and one not yet being implemented. The plan also 
lists five additional measures that have been implemented but were not in the first FRMP. 

53 Haparanda, Section 13.1; SE2 Falun, Section 13; SE3 Stockholm, Section 13; SE5 Kristianstad, Section 12.1;  

38 

 
 
 
 
Governance 

Sweden reported to EIONET that coordination has taken place at international level in one RBD, the 
Bothnian Bay International District Torne River (SE1TO). It refers to the 2010 Border River Agreement 
between Finland and Sweden and the Finnish-Swedish Border River Commission, whose purpose is 
to prevent floods and environmental accidents. 

All five FRMPs assessed have a section describing the consultation process54, explaining that the draft 
plans had a public consultation period of between two and three months. During the consultation 
period, relevant documentation was available on the County Administrative Board's website for all 
five  FRMPs,  and  for  three  of  the  five  FRMPs  (Haparanda,  Falun,  Karlstad),  a  call  for  inputs  was 
announced in local, regional and/or national newspapers. NGOs are reported as being involved in the 
consultation for only one FRMP. 

Consideration of climate change 

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood risk management 
plans, reference is made to section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’. 

Progress identified in the second FRMPs 

Three FRMPs assessed provide an overview of the achievement of the objectives in the respective 
first plans. The second FRMPs all present to at least some extent what their measures are trying to 
achieve, where, how, and by when: thus, the second FRMPs provide more specific and measurable 
information.  Three  of  the  five  second  FRMPs  provide  at  least  some  information  on  the  costs  of 
measures, though only for a limited number of measures. Four of the five second FRMPs assessed 
provide some information on the progress of their measures, compared to two of the five first FRMPs 
assessed. Three of the five FRMPs assessed refer to nature-based solutions, though they provide only 
limited information. In addition, four of the five second FRMPs discuss measures to assess risks for 
cultural heritage or to protect cultural heritage. Moreover, four of the five second FRMPs mention the 
issue of damage costs and insurance-related issues, while none of the first FRMPs assessed did. Also, 
all  five  second  FRMPs  assessed  describe  a  monitoring  approach,  compared  to  four  first  FRMPs 
assessed. Two of the five FRMPs refer to a cost-benefit analysis in a detailed manner (previously one 
of the assessed FRMPs did and briefly). All five FRMPs assessed refer to coordination with regional 
strategies for climate adaptation. Four of the five FRMPs discuss work on cloudburst mapping and 
one FRMP, for Falun, plans to carry out a climate vulnerability analysis for infrastructure measures. 

8. FD recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, Sweden should: 

•  Consider pluvial flooding further in the FHRM; 

•  Provide, in the FRMP, detail on how the FHRM was used in the choice of objectives and 

measures; 

•  Provide, in all FRMPs, an overview of the achievement of the objectives in the respective 

first plans; 

54 Haparanda, Section 12; SE2 Falun, Section 12; SE5 Karlstad, Section 11; SE4 Kristianstad, Section 11; SE3 Stockholm, 
Section 12. 

39 

 
 
•  Provide, in the FRMP, information on the costs of all measures included in the FRMP, as 

well as an overall budget and information on how these costs were derived;  

•  Provide, in the FRMP, information on the methods used to prioritise measures; 

•  Set out the progress of their measures in all FRMPs; 

•  Consider protection of cultural heritage in all FRMPs; 

•  Aim  at  a  six-month  duration  of  public  consultation  for  the  FRMP  and  encourage  the 

participation of civil society; 

•  Consider, where appropriate, in the FHRM, flow velocity or relevant water flow and in the 

FRMP flood conveyance routes, as these are relevant to emergency response. 

40