By Abbas Nazil
The European Union’s Water Resilience Strategy, which aims to enhance water efficiency across the bloc, faces criticism for potentially failing to address the Europe’s growing water crises.
The European Parliament has now adopted its position on the strategy, outlining its priorities ahead of the European Commission’s final version expected in June.
However, doubts are mounting over whether the plan will meaningfully curb Europe’s rising droughts, pollution, and inefficient water use.
At the heart of the Parliament’s demands are water efficiency and abstraction targets across all sectors, with the lead negotiator, S\&D MEP Thomas Bajada, stressing the need to understand water availability and consumption.
Among the key recommendations is a legislative proposal to set usage targets, which would compel sectors to reduce wastage and optimize usage.
Yet, critics argue that enforcement and implementation—not the absence of targets—are the EU’s fundamental problems.
The European Environment Agency has repeatedly highlighted insufficient action by EU member states to reduce pressures from agriculture and industrial pollution on water systems.
The environmental NGO WWF has criticized the Parliament’s report for failing to address the root causes of water scarcity and pollution, particularly those stemming from agricultural and industrial runoff.
Related Posts
Moreover, it lamented the lack of commitment to enforcing existing water protection laws.
To tackle the funding gap in water infrastructure and nature-based solutions, the Parliament is calling for the creation of a dedicated water resilience fund in the EU’s next multi-year financial framework (MFF). Bajada acknowledged the ambition of such a proposal but emphasized its necessity.
According to Water Europe, Europe requires an estimated €255 billion to meet existing water rules and boost efficiency. A large portion of water loss—up to 23%—results from old, leaking infrastructure.
Though the Parliament’s report promotes nature-based solutions (NbS), such as restoring wetlands and removing river obstructions, critics argue that it doesn’t prioritize these over grey infrastructure.
WWF’s Alejandra Morales claimed references to NbS were diluted and the strategy weakened.
Meanwhile, the report supports the development of modern irrigation and desalination technologies, which have strong backing in water-scarce coastal countries like Malta.
A significant development in the strategy is a tougher stance on PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” While the earlier draft restricted bans to consumer goods only under proven health risks, the final report broadens this to include any products linked to environmental or health concerns.
The Parliament now calls for an eventual phase-out of PFAS, beginning with consumer goods, while also promoting research into safer alternatives.
Bajada confirmed progress was made through collaboration between the S\&D and EPP groups.
As the final strategy takes shape, the challenge remains whether the EU can translate its promises into impactful policies that truly secure water resilience in the face of mounting environmental pressures.
