Reply to EC consultation on a targeted revision of the Water Framework Directive

Reply from a group of researchers and experts at Stockholm University to the EC consultation on a targeted revision of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).

Summary

Opening up the WFD for revision entails significant risks. The European Commission’s recent fitness check deemed it fit for purpose and no compelling case has been made to support its revision at this stage. Member States already have legal pathways to authorise projects that may override public interest. Rather than revisiting the legislation, the EU and Member States should prioritise the implementation, funding and enforcement of the existing WFD obligations. Today only 40% of EU surface waters bodies meet EU quality standards, putting at risk the right to access to clean water and burdening public budgets and drinking water bills. At the same time, there are rapidly advancing and effective technologies for water treatment and reuse, particularly in sectors such as mining. If the EC and Member States would like to support their mining industries, a better way would be to support the development and use of such cleaning methods, enabling mining activities while ensuring the protection of water resources and ecosystems.

Risk of opening up the Directive

The Water Framework Directive is the strongest legal tool for protecting and restoring freshwater and coastal ecosystems, and is a cornerstone legislation for the Water resilience strategy and for its daughter directives – i.e. the Groundwater Directive and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive. The fitness check performance done by the European Commission in 2019 also concluded that it is fit for purpose and that the reason for not yet fully delivering on the environmental goals is the lack of national implementation and funding. (1) The opening of such an important directive should hence not be done hastily and without sufficient time for consultation and a thorough Impact Assessment.

Another risk of reopening the Directive is the potential for unintended scope expansion. While a revision may initially be presented as narrowly targeted, such as addressing the needs of the mining sector, the legislative process can broaden its scope significantly. Both the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament can introduce amendments that extend beyond the original intent. This was recently demonstrated in the revision of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive in 2025, which evolved beyond its initially targeted focus. Such development is not unlikely considering that some stakeholders have recently argued that the Directive imposes disproportionate costs or blocks economic development. (2, 3)

We would like to underline that Member States already have the possibility to authorise projects that override public interest or environmental benefit tests under Article 4(7)(c). Importantly, they retain a broad margin of discretion for determining what constitutes an overriding public interest. (4) Also, two new exemptions from the non-deterioration principle were agreed upon in the fall of 2025. The effect of these changes should be allowed to be implemented and assessed in practice before a revision of the WFD.

Comments to the consultation

The process leading up to this consultation appears to have been unusually rushed and insufficiently transparent. Notably, the initiative was not included in the Commission Work Programme, limiting stakeholders’ ability to anticipate and prepare for meaningful engagement. In addition, the preparatory phase seems to have been disproportionately focused on the concerns of the mining sector, raising questions about the balance and inclusiveness of the consultation process. (5) The open consultation also states that "The revision of the WFD should be in line with the interpretative guidance document the Commission will publish in early 2026." But this guidance document is not yet available. Nor does the consultation outline the changes considered or suggested to the WFD, making it difficult for stakeholders to provide informed and substantive input.

New techniques are available

Even if mining companies consider existing legal requirements for water protection burdensome, weakening those protections is not an appropriate solution. Instead, the EU and Member States should ensure the efficient treatment of industrial effluent. A wide range of advanced and increasingly cost-efficient technologies is already available to treat and reuse water in the mining sector. (6, 7) Supporting the uptake, scaling, and further development of these innovations would provide a more sustainable pathway.

The mining industry itself often highlights Europe’s leadership in sustainable and responsible mining practices. In Finland, Agnico Angle invested €80 million between 2016 and 2020 in environmental measures at the Kittilä mine, achieving a 75% reduction in sulfate concentrations in discharge water.8 Such responsible practices should be encouraged and supported, and forerunners should be rewarded, not punished.

Lessons from mining history

In Sweden, there are numerous waters that remain permanently polluted, illustrating the shortcomings of the polluter pays principle. Examples include Ala Lombolo in Kiruna (9), contaminated with mercury, brominated diphenyl ethers, lead, and cadmium from LKAB's mining activities; Lake Naalojärvi in Gällivare (10), contaminated by brominated diphenyl ethers, mercury, and nickel linked to the same operations; and Lake Storjuktan (11) in Sorsele, contaminated with zinc from the Blaiken mine. More broadly, Sweden has over 300 suspected contaminated areas from abandoned mines that pose a very high or high risk to the environment and human health. (12) This legacy of pollution underscores the long-term consequences of insufficient safeguards and enforcement, and highlights the importance of maintaining, rather than weakening, robust water protection standards.