The suspension announced by Gabriel Attal to respond to the anger of farmers appears to contradict European regulations and a decision of the Paris administrative court.
Published
Reading time: 4 min
:quality(50)/2024/02/09/gettyimages-181583789-65c5f81be077a032461317.jpg)
On February 1, 2024, amid the anger of farmers, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal announced the pause of the Ecophyto plan. A decision that sparked associations, politicians and scientists. On February 7, the latter underlined, in an article published in The worldhow much this measurement “contradicts the objective of reducing pesticide use”. The plan aims to reduce the use of pesticides by 50% by 2030 compared to the 2015-2017 period. A few days later, on February 4, the Minister of Agriculture Marc Fesneau clarified the announcement and explained that this “break” was only going to last “a few weeks”. But is this suspension legal?
The Ecophyto plan results from European directive 2009/128/EC which requires member states to create the conditions For “achieve a use of pesticides compatible with sustainable development”. A first version was unveiled in 2009. “Following failures, [le texte] has evolved a lot”, specifies Louise Tschanz, lawyer specializing in environmental law. This is followed, in 2015 and 2018, by the Ecophyto II and Ecophyto II+ plans. They each integrate new objectives of independence with regard to pesticides. “They had no effect”, says Louise Tschanz. A study by the Ministry of Agriculture confirms an increase in the sale and use of pesticides from 2009 to 2018.
Goals not met?
France was therefore called to order. On June 29, 2023, the Paris administrative court recognized “the existence of ecological damage resulting from the widespread, diffuse, chronic and lasting contamination of water and soil by the active substances of plant protection products, the decline of biodiversity and biomass” and urges the government to “put an end to all breaches of its obligations” and to “take all useful measures likely to repair the ecological damage” within one year. Concretely, the French government has until June 30, 2024 to implement the court decision.
“It is necessary not only for the State to apply measures but also for them to have results.”
Arnaud Gossé, lawyer specializing in environmental lawat franceinfo
The pausing of the plan therefore appears contradictory with the decision of the administrative court. “However, we cannot say that it is illegal before the administrative judge rules on June 30, 2024”, continues Arnaud Gossé. The government has until this date to present a new plan with effective measures. “Presumably the government aims to implement the court’s decision”, notes Arnaud Gossé. Questioned by franceinfo, the Prime Minister’s entourage believes that this “shutdown” is justified by “a need for dialogue” on “certain specific points”.
Towards new remedies
For example, some farmers criticize the Nodu indicator (or number of unit doses). The latter is used to measure the quantities of products spread on treated surfaces. In short: the more a product is used, the lower its rating. Its detractors argue that certain substances require several passes and that Nodu does not take into account the dangerousness of the products. Faced with these criticisms, Gabriel Attal announced the implementation of a new system: the HRI-1, the harmonized risk indicator, which is already used in several European countries. This is supposed to take into account the quantities and toxicity of pesticides.
On paper, this is the perfect indicator. However, according to a report by the environmental organization Global 2000 Austria, the reality is quite different. It would take into account the respective quantities of active substances in pesticides placed on the market, but regarding toxicity, everything is complicated. For this variable, several categories are created: low-risk substances, candidates for substitution, unapproved active substances and active substances approved, but which do not belong to any group. Only, according to the report, 80% of approved substances are in the latter group.
Here, biological substances such as quartz sand are mixed, but also synthetic chemicals such as nerve agents. But being part of the same group, everyone obtains the same rating regarding the dangerousness of the product: 8. Organic products and synthetic chemical pesticides are therefore evaluated at the same level. Furthermore, organic products require more visits to the fields than synthetic products. We thus find the same bias as for the Nodu indicator.
Concretely, with the two factors that make up the HRI-1 indicator, organic products are targeted and penalized according to the report. Chemical products are therefore favored. “By changing the indicator, the government can present a plan that shows usage has decreased while the current indicator shows the opposite”, says Dorian Guinard, professor of public law and member of justice for the living. This is why, according to him, the Justice for the Living association has already planned to take the matter to court on July 1, 2024.