Blaj from the chemical industry federation CEFIC, and Dalhielm from water operators' umbrella EurEau, were at the heart of the debate, taking opposing stances on how best to balance industrial water needs, resilience, and regulatory frameworks. Blaj emphasized the fragmentation and incoherence of EU water and industrial emissions regulations as barriers to innovative water reuse and industrial circularity. Conversely, Dalhielm prioritised upstream pollution control, arguing that without such prevention, water operators face escalating costs and struggle to reliably supply water to industrial users. Both supported innovation but diverged on whether regulatory barriers or upstream responsibilities should be the main focus. Meanwhile, other voices like Lindén from waste management and Balzer of hydrogen projects contributed views on the transformation of wastewater treatment plants and long-term water strategies for clean technologies, adding layers to the governance and regulatory tension.
This robust discussion unfolded in the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) session convened by the European Commission on December 8, 2025, focusing on the Water Resilience Strategy’s potential to boost EU industrial competitiveness amid zero-pollution and net-zero targets.
On substantive proposals, Blaj called for legislative coherence across EU laws like the Water Framework Directive and Industrial Emissions Directive, urging technology-neutral EU guidelines to unblock permitting hurdles. Dalhielm offered detailed insights on investment gaps amounting to €23 billion annually for water operators, advocating for incentive reforms linked to end-uses that also preserve affordability for consumers. Lindén explicitly proposed mandatory key performance indicators (KPIs) for wastewater treatment plants to transition into resource recovery hubs, including strict PFAS removal targets. Balzer stressed redesigning hydrogen projects to minimize water use and brine discharge through circular approaches. In contrast, some speakers delivered more general affirmations of the need for innovation and cross-sector cooperation without granular targets.
The debate revealed a cleavage between further integrating and centralizing EU water governance to streamline permitting and enforce rules, championed by Blaj and Lindén, and emphasizing local upstream pollution management and affordability concerns, underscored by Dalhielm and Gryffroy from the Belgian Senate advocating multi-level governance. The discussion highlighted tensions between boosting industrial competitiveness through regulatory modernization and protecting water resources via stringent upstream controls. Various stakeholders face trade-offs: water operators seek investments and clear guidance to upgrade infrastructure; chemical and hydrogen industries need regulatory clarity and resource efficiency; consumers benefit from affordability safeguards; and EU regulators are challenged to harmonize complex directives.
Going forward, the Water Resilience Strategy may prioritize KPIs and innovation incentives while wrestling with coordination among EU, national, and local authorities. The session's consensus on the urgency of integrating water into holistic industrial policy, combined with the call for balancing competitiveness with a just transition, suggests the Commission will further explore governance models that reconcile regulatory coherence with regional flexibility. The creation of binding KPIs and reforms in water pricing and permitting procedures could form the backbone of the upcoming strategy initiatives addressing water resilience and EU industrial transformation.