Emergency agricultural law: LFI and the Greens challenge several measures before the Constitutional Council

Members of Parliament from La France Insoumise and the Greens have appealed to the Constitutional Council to challenge the emergency agricultural law definitively adopted by Parliament. The two groups believe that several provisions of the text are unconstitutional, particularly those relating to the reintroduction of certain banned pesticides and the management of water resources.

The legal challenge specifically targets the provisions that allow, under certain conditions, the use of acetamiprid for the hazelnut industry and flupyradifurone for sugar beets, apples, and cherries. The parliamentarians argue that these measures were introduced as "legislative riders," unrelated to the original bill, and point out that similar amendments were ruled inadmissible during their review in the National Assembly.

Pesticide exemptions at the heart of the appeal

The plaintiffs argue that the new exemptions are insufficiently regulated and do not guarantee adequate environmental protection. They also criticize the legislation for allowing, in certain cases, the advance authorization of treatments without prior assessment of a health threat, while, in their view, limiting public participation in decisions that have environmental consequences.

The MPs point out that the Constitutional Council last year struck down the reinstatement of certain neonicotinoids due to insufficient regulatory oversight. They believe the new provisions still pose risks to biodiversity, particularly pollinating insects, as well as to human health.

Criticisms of water and environmental management

The appeal also targets measures designed to facilitate the creation of water storage facilities for agricultural use. Parliamentarians denounce the elimination of mandatory public meetings during environmental permitting procedures, arguing that it reduces opportunities for citizen participation in public decisions.

They also contest the objective of doubling water storage capacity by 2035, arguing that these facilities would primarily benefit a portion of farms while risking exacerbating water resource tensions. The Constitutional Council now has one month to rule on the constitutionality of this law.