The five associations at the origin of the “faulty deficiency” appeal for the failures of the pesticide marketing process responded to the arguments of the government.
by Perrine Mourte
Arguments against arguments. The battle between environmental defense and government associations continues within the framework of the “Justice for the Living” procedure. A year ago, five organizations filed an appeal for “faulty deficiency” against the French State for breach of its biodiversity protection obligations: they accuse him, in particular, of being responsible for failures in the process authorization and marketing of pesticides, which have a major impact on the destruction of species and ecosystems.
Tuesday, January 24, Pollinis, our affair to all, the association for the protection of wild animals, the National Association for the Protection of Waters and Rivers and Biodiversity under our feet were to make public the deposit with the administrative court of Paris of their “replica memory”, in which they respond to the arguments of the State. These were returned to court on December 19, 2022, the same day of the signature in Canada, after the COP15, of a global agreement aimed at putting an end to the erosion of biodiversity.
The faults of the European risk assessment system linked to phytosanitary products have been identified for a long time, but persist due to the blocking of certain states and industries. Among these shortcomings are notably the non -account or the undervaluation of “cocktail effects” -the consequences of coexximation to several substances -, sublétal effects, or the fact that the species used for tests are not Representative of all classes of species concerned.
possibility of going further “
In his response from December 2022, a document of less than twenty pages that MO12345lemonde was able to consult, the government does not dispute these shortcomings, but rejects any “fault”. Its main argument is that it has “no room for maneuver”, the marketing authorization procedure being “entirely harmonized and completely supervised” by European Union law (EU). France, like the other member states, would therefore have no “capacity for action” to modify the procedure at the national level.
Associations consider, however, that the State cannot be entrenched behind this argument. “European regulations give a framework, but does not prevent states from going further, says Julia Thibord, head of strategic litigation in Pollinis. On the contrary, the EU demands that they complete its regulations for S ‘ Ensure that general principles, such as the precautionary principle or effective environmental protection, are well respected, and to take into account the latest scientific and technical knowledge. “
You have 55.47% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.