Clashing perspectives emerged between MEP Thomas Bajada and representatives of the European Commission and Council Presidency during the European Water Resilience Forum plenary session, held on 8 December 2025. The core disagreements centered around how to implement the EU-wide 10% water efficiency target, whether to revise the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and governance approaches for managing the EU’s water resources.
Bajada pressed for binding, sector-specific pathways to achieve water efficiency in agriculture, industry, and urban areas, emphasizing that efficiency alone is meaningless without quality improvements and full law enforcement. He also opposed reopening the WFD, warning that revisions risk destabilizing water quality protections. The Commission’s Jessika Roswall and Denmark’s Council Presidency representative, Ida Hannibal, agreed on the target’s ambition but framed it in terms of investment, digital innovation, and infrastructure modernization rather than strict regulatory pathways. Roswall and Hannibal also underscored pollution control and PFAS restrictions with a more pragmatic tone, balancing regulatory ambition and economic concerns.
This high-level debate unfolded at the EU Water Resilience Forum’s Stocktaking Plenary, which brought together EU institutional representatives, local and regional voices, and global water experts. The forum focused on assessing and forwarding the European Water Resilience Strategy amid growing challenges such as pollution, climate change, and infrastructure aging.
MEP Bajada stood out with concrete policy proposals, calling for detailed operationalization of the efficiency target, stronger river-basin authorities, cross-border water budget sharing, and a dedicated EU water funding line in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. In contrast, Roswall and Hannibal emphasized principles like digitalization, reuse, and sustainability, suggesting a more investment-driven approach without committing to binding instruments or timelines. Bajada’s approach pushes toward stronger EU regulatory powers and sharper enforcement, while the Commission and Council prefer incremental modernization with flexibility.
Bajada promotes extending EU institutional strength through binding efficiency pathways and stronger water basin governance, whereas the Commission and Council favor pragmatism via innovation, infrastructure funding, and cooperation without overhauling existing legal frameworks. On pollution and PFAS, all speakers agreed on the need for source reduction but balanced this with cost and innovation concerns.
For stakeholders, Bajada’s proposals imply increased compliance costs for industry sectors like agriculture and urban water management but could lead to improved water quality and resilience benefiting consumers and local authorities. Meanwhile, the Commission and Council’s investment-led path might ease immediate regulatory burdens on producers but could slow progress in efficiency gains and environmental outcomes. Regional authorities highlight infrastructure degradation and call for cohesion funding as essential to equitable water resilience.
Looking ahead, the debate suggests continued negotiations among EU institutions to reconcile these approaches. The Commission may advance initiatives emphasizing innovation and digital tools, while MEPs like Bajada will likely advocate for clearer sectoral targets and stronger governance mechanisms. The Water Resilience Forum’s conclusions will feed into EU policymaking, potentially influencing upcoming regulatory reviews and funding decisions aligned with global water agendas such as the 2026 UN Water Conference.
This deliberative session underscored water resilience as a multidimensional priority where balancing ambition, legal stability, innovation, and fairness remains an evolving political challenge for Europe.