The shared number is the first warning
Imagine a Nordic portfolio register with three lines: a Danish logistics property mapped at knowledge level 1 (V1), another Danish property mapped at knowledge level 2 (V2), and a Swedish industrial property in MIFO risk class 2. A central team converts them into amber, red and red. The table looks consistent. The reasoning is not.
The Danish labels describe the knowledge supporting a statutory mapping decision. The Swedish number expresses an overall risk and priority assessment under the Method for Inventory of Contaminated Sites, known by its Swedish abbreviation MIFO. A Swedish class 2 is therefore not the counterpart of Danish V2. The shared number is a coincidence, not a translation.
Even the public interfaces describe different objects. In Denmark, a soil-contamination certificate can be generated for a cadastral parcel through Danmarks Arealinformation, while the formal mapping can cover only part of that parcel. Sweden's EBH-stödet contains potentially and confirmed contaminated objects. The public map is a limited view, and an EBH object does not necessarily follow the cadastral boundary of the property being acquired.
The commercial error is to treat a label as though it already expresses contamination extent, human-health risk, remediation cost, legal liability and authority priority. It expresses none of those questions on its own. A useful cross-border comparison starts one level below the register, with the former activity, the area assessed, the evidence stage, the current land use and the decision the buyer or owner must make.
In Denmark, V1 and V2 describe what is known
Section 4 of the Danish Soil Contamination Act allows an area to be mapped at V1 when there is factual knowledge of activities on that area, or another area, that may have caused contamination. V1 is therefore more than an unsupported suspicion, but it is not proof that contamination is present. The evidence may be an industrial history, an environmental file, a building record, a tank record or another documented source activity.
Section 5 defines V2 by a documentation basis supporting, with a high degree of certainty, that contamination capable of harming people or the environment is present. In practice, that basis will often include analyses of soil, groundwater or soil gas, or documented knowledge of a spill. V2 is stronger evidence of contamination than V1, but it is not a severity grade.
A V2 polygon does not automatically reveal the contaminant, concentration, depth, lateral extent, migration pathway, remediation status or consequence for the proposed use. One V2 area may reflect a localised oil release already delineated beneath hardstanding. Another may concern chlorinated solvents in groundwater with a vapour pathway. The label can be identical while the transaction consequences are fundamentally different.
Geometry also changes the answer. Danish mapping applies to an area and may cover only part of a cadastral property. A certificate is an essential first check, but it should be read with the mapping decision, historical plans, investigation reports and current project layout. Former process areas, drains, tanks, imported fill and neighbouring sources should be compared with buildings, excavation zones, infiltration systems and the actual deal boundary.
Absence of V1 or V2 mapping is not an environmental warranty. A former activity may not yet have been reviewed, information may sit in municipal or regional files, or a release may never have been reported. The register is a strong public evidence source, not a substitute for a proportionate activity-history review.
In Sweden, the phase can matter as much as the risk class
Sweden's EBH support database contains both potentially and confirmed contaminated objects. Registration alone does not prove contamination, and absence from the public map does not prove that a site is clean. County administrative boards note that the database is continually updated and that municipalities or other authorities may hold additional records.
MIFO adds a structured assessment. Risk class 1 means very high risk, class 2 high risk, class 3 moderate risk and class 4 low risk. The assessment considers contaminant hazard, estimated or measured contamination level, migration conditions, and the sensitivity and protection value of the surroundings. It is an expert synthesis used for prioritisation, not a concentration band and not a statement of transaction liability.
The evidence stage is crucial. MIFO phase 1 is an orienting study based on records, interviews, mapping and a site visit. A risk class can be assigned without sampling. MIFO phase 2 adds an overview environmental investigation and a revised classification based on the results. Two objects can both be class 2 while one rests mainly on activity history and the other on actual field data.
Naturvårdsverket expressly cautions that a phase 1 risk class 1 does not necessarily mean the site is contaminated to that degree. Investigation is needed to test the classification. The reverse error is equally important in property work: class 3 or 4 does not mean that redevelopment, excavation, a sensitive new use or a newly recognised contaminant can be ignored.
The date and assumptions behind the class must therefore be recovered. Ask what land use was assessed, which contaminants were considered, whether the object boundary matches the transaction, what sampling was completed, and whether remediation or monitoring occurred after the classification. A static number can lag behind a changing evidence record.
This is why Swedish risk class 2 is not Danish V2. MIFO class 2 is one outcome on a four-level risk and priority scale. Danish V2 is shorthand for a statutory knowledge level. They may both trigger attention, but they do so for different reasons.
Three cases show why the file matters more than the label
Headline cases are useful when they expose what a register entry cannot say. They should not be used as templates for every site, but they demonstrate how surface appearance, evidence stage, remediation progress and property consequence can diverge.
Kærgård Klitplantage in Denmark looks like protected coastal nature. Beneath it, the former Grindstedværket deposited roughly 300,000 tonnes of toxic wastewater over 17 years. Region Syddanmark reports that more than 7,000 tonnes of heavily contaminated soil containing substances including cyanide, mercury and chlorinated solvents have been removed. The current programme treats the groundwater beneath the pits, with biological treatment planned through 2028 and long-term monitoring afterwards. The lesson for due diligence is not that every V2 site resembles Kærgård. It is that neither a green surface nor a short mapping label describes source mass, groundwater migration or the maturity of the remediation programme.
BT Kemi in Teckomatorp is Sweden's classic counterpoint. Pesticide production and buried waste led to the scandal exposed in the 1970s. Decades of investigation and remediation followed. Svalöv Municipality reported in 2026 that BT Kemi-related contaminants had been remediated across the northern and southern areas, while residual dioxin remained mainly three to five metres below part of the thermally treated area. In September 2026, SVT reported new funding for a final chemical-oxidation measure expected to run to 2028. A bare MIFO class cannot tell a buyer which phase of that history the present evidence represents, what has been verified, or what remains contained below ground.
The Enghavevej case in Varde shows a different consequence. According to TV SYD's 2026 reporting, a house was sold twice before Region Syddanmark identified contamination from an old landfill and mapped the property at V2 in 2016. Litigation then moved backwards through the chain of sellers. The District Court in Esbjerg awarded a DKK 300,000 price reduction against earlier sellers, with interest and costs bringing their reported exposure to DKK 660,000. The case was under appeal when reported. It should not be read as a general rule on seller liability, but it shows how a later mapping decision can reopen questions about value, disclosure, evidence and contractual allocation many years after a transaction.
The three cases are very different, which is precisely the point. A contaminated-land label may sit over active treatment, residual contamination, an unresolved historic source or a private-law dispute. Decision-makers need the chronology behind the entry: what happened, what was investigated, what changed, what remains, and which party or authority is dealing with it now.
Build one cross-border decision process, not one false scale
A Nordic portfolio can still be reviewed consistently. The common element should be the decision process, not an invented conversion table. Each property should be reduced to the same set of questions while the national terminology and legal pathway remain visible.
Start with the business decision. Continued industrial use, refinancing, a warehouse extension and conversion to housing do not require the same certainty. The review should identify the unresolved environmental question capable of changing value, programme, design, financing or contractual position. That question determines whether the next step is a file request, targeted investigation, authority dialogue, cost allowance or contractual condition.
For the opening portfolio example, the Danish V1 property should not automatically rank below the Danish V2 property, and the Swedish class 2 property should not automatically rank alongside V2. A V1 former dry cleaner beside a proposed basement may deserve earlier escalation than a well-delineated V2 oil hotspot outside the development area. A Swedish class 2 assigned after phase 1 may contain less field evidence than either Danish property. Priority follows the decision consequence, not the label's apparent colour.
- Preserve the original record. Capture the national system, authority, object or locality identifier, date, status, phase, class and map geometry.
- Obtain the file behind the map. Request the Danish mapping decision and supporting material, or the Swedish EBH extract and relevant county, municipal and supervisory records.
- Identify the evidence stage. Separate activity history, initial risk assessment, overview sampling, detailed delineation, remediation verification and long-term monitoring.
- Reconstruct the source and pathways. Relate former activities, tanks, drains, fill, groundwater direction and neighbouring sources to the actual transaction and project area.
- Re-test the assumptions against the proposed use. Evidence prepared for continued industry may not answer questions created by housing, excavation, basements or infiltration.
- Keep four conclusions separate. Contamination, site-specific risk, authority priority and legal responsibility affect one another, but no register label settles all four.
- Escalate only uncertainty that can change the decision. Tie each further step to a consequence for price, programme, design, use, financing or contractual protection.
Official sources