Nyhed Water

It is tragic to see Denmark at the forefront of watered-down water protection in the EU

Danish LEFT MEP Per Clausen explains that he is only accepting the trilogue agreement on water protection with gritted teeth - and attacks the role of Denmark in trying to dilute the levels of protection.

Foto: The Left

23. september 2025 Kl 21:16

Opdateret: 26. september 2025 Kl 14:19

Pelle Christy Geertsen

23. september 2025 Kl 21:16
Opdateret: 26. september 2025 Kl 14:19

When last night a trilogue agreement on surface water pollutant was finally concluded between the European Parliament and the EU countries, Danish Red-Green Alliance MEP, Per Clausen, was there.

He expresses general disappointment with the result, which has been seriously watered down compared to the original proposal from the Commission. He also states his frustration with Denmark and does not understand why the Danish government has been among those who have pushed hard to watered down the proposal, so that the protection of the EU’s aquatic environment is weakened.

When he nevertheless ended up accepting the agreement, it is because the alternative could have been even worse. This is not least because of the fact, that if an agreement is not reached now, it will be another six years before new changes can be introduced, as he explains:

It is an agreement we are entering into with gritted teeth, and at the same time an agreement that shows how little the Danish government is unfortunately really interested in improving our aquatic environment.

He continues:

When we in the end accept the proposal, it is primarily due to two things: Firstly, because a delay would mean that another six years would have to pass before we could change the rules again. Secondly, we have, after all, prevented Member States from implementing all of their deteriorations. This is a small step forward on several points – albeit far less than it should have been.

Shameful to see Denmark on the wrong side

Although Per Clausen ended up accepting the final compromise, he expressed great frustration about the role Denmark has had in the negotiations, even before it took over the presidency of the EU. He believes that Denmark has been one of the countries that has almost consistently been on the wrong side of this discussion, and one of the countries who insisted on watering down the proposal on several points – despite all the nice words about wanting to save the aquatic environment:

If I am honest, one of the most frustrating aspects of the negotiations has been to see Denmark repeatedly leading attempts to water down the EU proposal for better protection of our aquatic environment. It is clear, that Denmark on this point says one thing – but in practice fights for the opposite.

He elaborates further:

Therefore, one must also say openly that when we nevertheless managed to negotiate a result that is palatable and can contribute to water protection, it is not because of the Danish government’s efforts – but rather in spite of them. I think that must stand as a stain on the presidency when it is eventually evaluated.

Denmark’s problematic position

One of the problems with Denmark’s position has been a desire to introduce exceptions that allow for the deterioration of water quality, e.g. when it came to discharging or dumping large amounts of sediments into the aquatic environment. On this point, Per Clausen says:

I can understand how these exceptions would be very practical for the Danish Government, not least in relation to its own controversial projects, but it is simply not ok to seek to undermine European environmental legislation for that reason.

More about the problematic line Denmark has been pursuing in the negotiations, can be found in the leaked non-paper from 2024, i.e. before the Danish EU presidency, which Denmark supported.

Delayed negotiations and time pressure

Lastly, Per Clausen notes that he is pleased that an agreement has at least been reached. According to the original planning, this should have been done already in June, before the Danish EU presidency began. When it didn’t come to fruition then, it was because several EU countries insisted on a demand for what Per Clausen has called deterioration:

I am pleased that we have now, at long last, reached an agreement. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as big a step forward in aquatic environmental protection as it should have been. But at least we were able to ensure, that it will be a small step forward – and that is important, not least because we risk that it could have ended up instead being one or more steps backwards.

Per Clausen concludes with a concrete example of an improvement compared to the Council’s proposal, which the European Parliament was successful in including:

It is important that we were able to secure, among other things, safeguards against the Council’s deterioration, including special protection for water areas that could affect our sources of drinking water. But the fact that it was necessary to fight for it at all says something about what we have been up against.

Due to the way the legislation is structured, further delays would have meant that a new revision of the EU directive would not have been possible for six years.