Avalanche of hot files obliges, this one went under the radars. But ministers, majority officials and LREM deputies have it in mind. On November 27, 2017, Emmanuel Macron promised that “the use of glyphosate (would) be prohibited in France as soon as alternatives have been found, and at the latest in three years. ” Here we are.
Admittedly, the president has since returned to his words – “in three years we will not do 100%”, he agreed in early 2019, “a ban overnight […] would kill our agriculture ”. The fact remains that the anniversary date of his first declaration, and therefore the time to take stock, is approaching.
What is it? The government’s forecast for 2021 – a 50% volume ban – shows that there is still a long way to go. “Glyphosate still represents 30% of the herbicides used in the country”, according to the Ministry of Ecological Transition, where there is a decrease “of 10% in 2019 compared to 2017 on a three-year average” and still for 2019 “the lowest sales of glyphosate since 2009 ”.
“We are the European country which has the most encouraging results,” echoes the Elysee Palace, where the position has not changed: “We will not leave farmers at an impasse.” Hence the advocated “method”: pronouncing bans as alternatives emerge. In this perspective, ministers Julien Denormandie (Agriculture) and Barbara Pompili (Ecological transition) have just announced a budget of 7 million euros to accelerate research in this area. Insufficient for the environmental association Future generations. “Another admission that there are no plans to formally ban this toxic product” sighs its president François Veillerette, who denounces “a long renunciation”.
The fear of a new neonicotinoid dossier
For the majority, who have not forgotten anything about past controversies, this file is undermined. “Symbolic, political,” breathes a Macronist. Behind the scenes, discussions are already taking place, discussions which could continue this Tuesday during the breakfast of the majority around the Prime Minister, Jean Castex. Objective: to demine and anticipate debates. “We are all aware that this is a very sensitive subject, admits the general delegate of LREM, Stanislas Guerini. Our majority want not to suffer the streak, but to be on the offensive. Can she speak with one voice, however?
“We also need to hear the silent majority of citizens who want to get out of glyphosate. The question is : do we respect the word we gave ourselves? I want us to debate it. Personally, I am to include the ban in law, my bill is already ready if the group wants to take it up, ”said LREM deputy, Jean-Charles Colas-Roy. When on the other side, his colleague Jean-Baptiste Moreau retorts: “It would be taken as a provocation by the farmers. And once it’s written into law, only a law can undo it. We have already experienced this with neonicotinoids. If ever the group takes up a bill like this one, I quit. “
No one knows how many elected Marcheurs might be receptive to such a bill. But all have in mind the divisions on neonicotinoids – at the beginning of October, 32 LREM deputies voted against the bill authorizing their temporary reintroduction in order to save the beet industry.
“We have to be careful not to be in the field of the symbolic. This is not the best way to move the subject forward. And at the same time, without pressure, things are moving too slowly, observes Stanislas Guerini. This is the discussion that we need to have within the group, because it would not be understood that we say: Move along, there’s nothing to see. It remains to be seen what will be the tone, and the turn, of these discussions.
Original article by : www.leparisien.fr