1. Swedish views on the revision of the WFD reporting sheets for the next reporting cycle
Niklas Holmgren Assistant Director Competent Authority of South Baltic River Basin District

2. The reporting stream WFD in Sweden€
21 Counties
SwaM
Reportnet
Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM)
The schemas, and support from EEA and Atkins – worked excellent!
5 Water Authorities

3. Pressures Review the lists of Pressures
2.4 Diffuse – Abandoned industrial sites (SW but not GW)
considered a Point Source in Sweden – scale 1:
Use assesment of RBMP from MS to aggregate categories
Define categories better – example:
1.3 Point - IPPC plants (EPRTR)
1.4 Point - Non IPPC
1.5 Point - Other
Are all categories used? Can they be aggregated?

4. Confidence Ecological status
Defined as low, medium and high.
To complex according to CIS guidance no 13 to be done for water bodies…
Simplify…

5. Environmental costs Assessment of RBMP – was it useful? Either…
Took a lot of time…
Either…
Make better definitions and methodologies or…
Skip it!

6. Learn from history! WFD RBMP reporting phase issues (HelpdeskWFD log)
WFD Article 2 Definitions: ”1. Surface water means inland waters, except groundwater; transitional waters and coastal waters, except in respect of chemical status for which it shall also include territorial waters.”
The answer leads to new questions….

7. Significant or ”normal” pressure?
Hard to define…
Need for intercalibration exercises?

8. Link from station to monitoring data per QE

9. Open API from national systems

10. Continue standardizing Update schemas according to INSPIRE

11. Conclusions Review after assessments of RBMP
Pressures list
Marine waters chemical status
Ecological confidence definitions
Environmental costs
Intercalibrate significant pressure definitions
SEIS – Open API development.
Add URL per QE and station to reach monitoring data
Develop Open API
Standardization - INSPIRE
Streamlining reporting streams
NiD, WISE SoE and WFD – keep going!
UWWT, IPPC, Habitates, Bathing water…