European Parliament Rallies Behind Ambitious Water Resilience Strategy

The European Parliament has adopted—with 470 votes in favour, 81 against, and 92 abstentions—its position on the forthcoming European Water Resilience Strategy, urging the Commission to pursue an integrated, ambitious approach to one of the EU’s most pressing environmental and socio-economic challenges.

Driven by mounting concerns over droughts, floods, and pollution, MEPs across most political groups called for a coordinated European response to water stress—a threat increasingly visible across the Union’s territory. The resolution, led by rapporteur Thomas Bajada (S&D, Malta), sets out Parliament’s vision for a strategy that prioritizes efficiency, resilience, and equity in water management.

“Water is life—for our people, our economy, and our environment,” Bajada told colleagues during the plenary debate. He criticized the current “scattered and sectoral” water policy landscape, advocating instead for EU-wide water efficiency and abstraction targets set at the basin level. Bajada also called for a dedicated water resilience fund in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), arguing that water resilience “is not a cost; it is an investment in our security, competitiveness, and fairness.” In the resolution, MEPs also tailored measures for regions facing unique challenges, such as the Mediterranean, islands, and outermost regions.

Environment Commissioner Roswall welcomed the Parliament’s contribution, acknowledging that its priorities—including stronger enforcement, pollution reduction, digitalization, and cross-border coordination—align with the Commission’s direction of travel. The forthcoming strategy, expected on 4 June, will integrate lessons from stakeholder consultations and expert roundtables conducted over the past months.

Water quality and chemical safety featured prominently in the debate, with multiple groups expressing concern over widespread contamination by PFAS. 

Already at committee level, the issue was divisive. During a recent ENVI committee debate, political groups showed significant differences in their stances: the EPP demanded clearly defined, time-limited exemptions for essential uses; the S&D group pushed for stricter regulation; and the ECR group advocated banning PFAS where alternatives exist but preserving them for vital industrial functions, such as wind turbine production, until replacements are available.

These divisions were reflected in the plenary debate. Bajada called for a more ambitious phase-out, supported by the Greens, Renew and S&D groups. The Left denounced attempts to dilute the scope of the ban and urged the Commission to table a comprehensive PFAS phase-out plan without delay.

Indeed, when the ENVI committee adopted its report on the European Water Resilience Strategy, drafted by S&D rapporteur Thomas Bajada, it caused considerable controversy. While the report was generally welcomed, amendments backed by the EPP and ECR—which argued for the necessity of some PFAS uses—were narrowly accepted. Bajada criticized the outcome, accusing conservative and far-right groups of favouring polluters over the public interest—a sentiment echoed by environmental NGOs and water service associations.

In plenary, the rapporteur ultimately succeeded in getting his colleagues to adopt a revised version of the contentious portion of the text, including the twin transition to a climate-neutral and digital economy among essential uses, and recalling the role of research in developing equivalent and safe alternatives.

In the press release following the vote, Bajada said: “I am very proud and very happy about the cross-party agreement that S&D and EPP have reached in order to move a step in the right direction on the phasing out of PFAS. And the language is stronger than what was agreed in the ENVI Committee, calling for a PFAS phase-out, beginning with restrictions in consumer goods and where safe alternatives exist.”

The debate also touched on other important issues, including the need to strengthen water infrastructure, implement nature-based solutions, apply a circular economy approach, and consider future water uses, such as for EU cleantech, data centres, and semiconductor manufacturing.

While there was broad agreement on these themes, divisions emerged around subsidiarity and funding. MEPs from the ECR and far-right groups voiced concerns about over-centralization and rejected what they framed as “ideological impositions from Brussels,” particularly around infrastructure and PFAS restrictions.

Nevertheless, the majority endorsed an approach that integrates water considerations across all EU policies—a mainstreaming that Bajada and others argue is essential to ensuring resilience from “source to sea.”

Speaking to the press, the rapporteur recalled the importance of the Parliament taking the initiative on the dossier and sending a clear message to the Commission, which is expected to publish its Water Resilience Strategy later this year. The hope is that the Parliament’s resolution will serve as a blueprint for its ambitions—and a benchmark for accountability.