Duplomb Law: Constitutional Council censors reintroduction of acetamiprid

On Thursday, August 7, the Constitutional Council censored the most controversial provision of the Duplomb law, which provided for the conditional reintroduction of a banned pesticide from the neonicotinoid family, deemed by the wise men to be contrary to the Environmental Charter.

The FNSEA (National Federation of Agricultural Unions) immediately reacted, stating that this decision was "a shock, unacceptable, and incomprehensible." "It is unacceptable that the Constitutional Council continues to allow over-transpositions" of European law, which authorizes acetamiprid until 2033 in the European Union, said Jérôme Despey, vice-president of the powerful agricultural union.

For its part, the Confédération paysanne, the third largest agricultural union, welcomed a "stage victory" and called for "continued pressure to be put on to obtain a reorientation of agricultural policies" .

The Constitutional Council, on the other hand, validated the administrative simplifications granted to larger livestock farms, as well as to the construction of water storage facilities for agricultural purposes – although with some reservations regarding this second measure. It also considered that the procedure for adopting the text, which had been rejected by its own supporters in the Assembly, was in accordance with the Constitution.

Emmanuel Macron "has taken good note of the decision of the Constitutional Council and will promulgate the law as it results from this decision as soon as possible," the Élysée Palace immediately reacted.

The Duplomb Law, adopted by Parliament in early July with the support of the government, has been the subject of a widespread protest movement despite the summer, including within the scientific community. A petition calling for its repeal has gathered more than 2.1 million signatures.

The reintroduction of acetamiprid, banned in France since 2018 but authorized elsewhere in Europe, has crystallized the protests. Its return was demanded by the powerful FNSEA agricultural union – from which LR senator Laurent Duplomb hails – for beet and hazelnut producers.

The Constitutional Council, recently chaired by Richard Ferrand, was thus forced to make a decision under pressure from both public opinion and the agricultural world. It ultimately ruled that "due to a lack of sufficient supervision" , this measure was contrary to the "framework defined by its case law, arising from the Environmental Charter" . This charter has constitutional value.

In their decision, the wise men recall that neonicotinoids "have an impact on biodiversity, particularly for pollinating insects and birds" and "induce risks for human health" .

In 2020, they agreed to a temporary exemption from their ban, limited to the beet sector and seed coating.

This time, the Constitutional Council censures the exemption introduced into the law, noting that it is not limited in time, nor to a particular sector, and also concerns spraying, which presents high risks of dispersion of substances.

By introducing such an exemption, the legislator "has deprived of legal guarantees the right to live in a balanced and health-friendly environment guaranteed by Article 1 of the Environmental Charter," the wise men write in their decision.

They also censored provisions concerning the repression of certain environmental offences, considered as "legislative riders" , that is to say without sufficient connection with the initial text.

Presented as one of the responses to the major agricultural protests of 2024, the Duplomb law was adopted with the votes of the government coalition and the far right. The left, up in arms, had referred the matter to the Constitutional Council .

In addition to certain provisions, she challenged the procedure used in the Assembly to adopt the text. Its defenders had themselves rejected it outright to circumvent the approximately 3,500 amendments tabled – many of them by the Greens and the Insoumis – preventing their examination in the chamber.

But the Constitutional Council considered that the adoption of this preliminary motion of rejection "did not disregard either the right of amendment or the requirements of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate." The proper conduct of democratic debate presupposes that "parliamentarians and the government can use the procedures at their disposal without hindrance," it notes.

Concerning the measures on certain water storage structures with an agricultural purpose, for which the Duplomb law provides in particular a presumption of major general interest, the Constitutional Council has issued two reservations of interpretation.

The measures adopted must not allow for sampling from inertial water tables – which empty or fill slowly – and must be able to be contested before a judge.

The wise men finally approved without reservation provisions eagerly awaited by some farmers concerning pig and poultry farming, which requires prior authorization for a certain number of animals. The law provides, among other things, for raising these thresholds. Emmanuel Macron now has two weeks to enact the law.