Submission to the European Commission Call for Evidence on the Revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

ClientEarth opposes the revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), arguing that current evidence supports full implementation over legislative changes. The organization warns that weakening the WFD would undermine legal certainty, jeopardize freshwater ecosystems, and shift economic costs from polluters to society. It specifically highlights risks from the mining sector and argues that the current revision process fails to comply with the European Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines.

• ClientEarth contends that there is no evidence justifying a revision of the WFD, noting that a 2019 Fitness Check found the directive "broadly fit for purpose" and that a 2025 Commission report identified "persistent implementation gaps rather than legislative deficiencies".
• The economic case supports implementation over revision; a 2025 Commission study estimated that the annual cost of non-implementation for coastal waters under the WFD is €2.6bn, while bringing water bodies under Article 4(4) exemptions to good status could generate annual benefits of approximately 38.6 billion euros.
• A revision is considered premature due to recent regulatory changes, including the 2024 Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and new 2026 derogations allowing temporary deterioration of chemical status (up to 1 year) and biological status (up to 3 years).
• ClientEarth argues the current revision process violates Better Regulation Guidelines because the call for evidence timeline is shorter than the standard 12-week period and the Commission intends to use a "lightweight" impact assessment.
• The document warns that expanding derogations would undermine the non-regression principle and the non-deterioration principle, citing that coal mining exemptions under Article 4(5) already cover roughly 8,000 km² in Germany and Poland.
• Weakening the WFD is argued to pose significant risks to public health and the economy, as riverine pollution and water scarcity undermine fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism, while mining pollution can reduce agricultural productivity.
• The mining sector is highlighted as a primary risk area, citing the Barroso lithium project in Portugal as an example where 'Strategic project' status under the CRMA may have led to insufficient scrutiny of risks to water resources.
• Historical evidence of mining failures is used to illustrate the danger of weakening safeguards, specifically the 1998 Aznalcóllar tailings dam failure in Spain, which cost 240 million euros in public funds to clean up.

APA

Moreno, C. (2026). Submission to the European Commission Call for Evidence on the Revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ag3kgk0a/clientearth-submission-to-the-wfd-call-for-evidence.pdf

Chicago

Moreno, Cléo. Submission to the European Commission Call for Evidence on the Revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). ClientEarth, 2026. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ag3kgk0a/clientearth-submission-to-the-wfd-call-for-evidence.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Moreno |first1=Cléo |title=Submission to the European Commission Call for Evidence on the Revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) |publisher=ClientEarth |date=April 2026 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/ag3kgk0a/clientearth-submission-to-the-wfd-call-for-evidence.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{moreno2026submission, author = {Moreno, Cléo}, title = {{Submission to the European Commission Call for Evidence on the Revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2026}, month = apr, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/ag3kgk0a/clientearth-submission-to-the-wfd-call-for-evidence.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }