Debate moderated by: Pascal Perri, economist and founder of Yes to innovation!
Speakers:
- Laurent Cappelletti, Professor at CNAM, Director at the ISEOR Institute of Socio-Economics, Institut Sapiens expert
- Loïk Le Floch Prigent, former executive at Elf Aquitaine and Gaz de France, and specialist in energy issues
- Christian Harbulot, French strategist specializing in economic intelligence, Director of the School of Economic Warfare
- Sylvain Pelletreau, partner at Richelieu Avocats, a firm specializing in environmental law
Context:
Environmental law is a highly topical issue: “climate” laws, the offence of ecocide, judicial powers granted to the French Office for Biodiversity (OFB), protection for whistleblowers, environmental protests… At the same time, the proliferation of legislative and regulatory texts is seen as an obstacle and an unjustified constraint by many economic stakeholders.
Senator Laurent Duplomb sums up the situation perfectly when commenting on his report on the competitiveness of “Farm France” and highlighting the long decline of our agriculture. Farmers today are experiencing “unbearable psychological pressure”. Regulatory pressure is one of the main causes.
According to Pascal Perri, the issue of environmental law raises two questions: are we witnessing a drift in environmental law? And how can environmental concerns, the protection of environmental law, and growth be reconciled? In other words, can we decouple growth in harm from growth itself?
Key takeaways:
- An overproduction of standards—seen as “performance indicators” for policymakers, but with harmful effects on businesses and regions.
- Environmental law in the hands of the environmental movement, alongside a withdrawal of the industrial world. As a result, the balance of the three pillars—environmental, social and economic—essential to ensuring sound legislation, is being undermined.
- Is a change of course and a return to common sense possible, with crises in the energy and agricultural/agri-food sectors bringing back the notion of “vital needs”?
- A necessary simplification of the regulatory framework, with a return of technical authority (dogmatism vs pragmatism).
Summary of the discussions
Regulatory production and political effectiveness: when standards become the politician’s “performance indicator”
In France, we are ahead of our neighbours in terms of regulatory production. However, not all enacted laws produce the expected effects. “A legislative corpus that remains in limbo,” Pascal Perri notes.
Sylvain Pelletreau, an environmental law attorney, recalls that environmental law must be a compromise between the use of nature and the protection of nature. “And if we push this definition further, we can say that environmental law is a permanent oxymoron: through this relationship between use and protection, through the question of time—short political time and the long time of transition—but also because the standard must at the same time be a tool for competitiveness.” And to make it a tool for competitiveness, he says, the rule must be anticipated.
“We must not confuse haste with transition.”, Sylvain Pelletreau.
“Environmental law must only be considered through the lens of sustainable development, which rests on three pillars: environmental, social and economic. Forgetting one of the three pillars means producing a flawed law,” explains Sylvain Pelletreau.
Regions are experiencing this as well. In environmental law, failing to take account of differences and specificities between regions leads to absurd situations. “This uncontrolled regulatory production raises several problems: it does not take account of the social aspect or the economic aspect—it is radical environmentalism, Pascal Perri adds—it is not part of a transition perspective and is not adaptable depending on the context. It also has a cost for businesses and regions (visible and hidden costs).” Laurent Cappelletti, CNAM professor
LEZs (low-emission zones), ZAN (net zero land take), energy-inefficient homes… These are all examples of this regulatory logorrhea, showing that in France we have a poetic rather than strategic vision of the environment (Sylvain Pelletreau).
The notion of the “offence of ecocide” is symptomatic of this relationship between political effectiveness and regulation.
Energy and agriculture: two sectors seriously impacted by the drift in environmental law
In a context of energy crisis, Christian Harbulot, Director of the School of Economic Warfare, returns to the issue of nuclear power. He deplores the lack of public statements by those most concerned—mentioning the body of engineers in the nuclear industry—during debates on France’s nuclear policy.
“They did not see this informational destabilization coming. How could an industry like France’s have been weakened so much?” Christian Harbulot
The same applies to the agricultural and agri-food sector: “it is a societal case that has not yet been fully grasped for what it represents,” and its consequences will be dramatic, Christian Harbulot insists.
For Loïk Le Floch Prigent, former executive at Elf Aquitaine and Gaz de France, the fundamental issue today is the difficulty for an industry to be able to do its job:
“That is to say, there are people tasked with controlling you, and they are opposed to what you produce. One in two people within the DREAL (Regional Directorates for the Environment, Planning and Housing) wants production to stop,” explains Loïk Le Floch Prigent, using the example of painting on metal.
The speakers mention the project to set up the Bridor plant (Le Duff Group) in Liffré, which has been challenged and subject to appeals. Another example: the plastics industry. “With the AGEC law, they want to ban plastic, even though we are the world’s third-largest plastic producer and production will double over the next five years, everywhere in the world,” notes Loïk Le Floch Prigent. The former executive speaks of the “law of 27”: in other European Union countries, it takes 27 days between a company’s decision to set up and authorization, whereas in France it takes 27 months. “The only solution is to move abroad.”
“In France, we have a certain sympathy for revolutionary romanticism: we have a poetic vision of environmental law.” Sylvain Pelletreau
Justice system, state apparatus, political class: what responsibility?
In reality, is it not a question of abusive appeals? asks Pascal Perri.
“An appeal is a legitimate means of contestation. It must exist,” states Maître Pelletreau. “There are abusive appeals. And judges lack the time to deal with all appeals. We, as lawyers, sometimes receive responses from judges that we do not understand. It would also be wise to have judges specialized in environmental law. We would save time.”
What worries Sylvain Pelletreau “is the response of some politicians today who, when too many appeals are filed, seek to silence those who file them.” While the bill on renewable energies is being examined in Parliament, objections from regions are being heard more and more. “And the Government is aware of it. It has even reduced avenues of appeal!” (Sylvain Pelletreau). On the subject of energy, “there is a real contradiction currently coming to light for the Government and Parliament.”
“But this law on wind turbines [among other things] will have no impact on the winters of 2022, 2023, 2024, … Wind and solar will not solve the energy problem. It is a lie, accepted by a large part of the press.” Loïk Le Floch Prigent.
Environmentalists’ monopoly over environmental law and the absence of strong opposition in the industrial sector
The state apparatus’s timidity regarding public order, the opportunism of the French political class, and an industrial world unfortunately focused on its core business mean that this radical environmentalist threat is not being taken into account, notes the Director of the School of Economic Warfare.
“People are surprised by the term ‘eco-terrorism’. But it already existed against nuclear power plants,” according to Christian Harbulot.
Environmental movements have benefited from the silence of representative bodies, Loïk Le Floch Prigent notes, but also from industrialists “unable to explain simple things to the public”. On this point, however, one must bear in mind the difficulty for industrialists to enter into conflict with a person who has both investigative power and sanctioning power, Sylvain Pelletreau specifies.
“We have left the monopoly of making environmental law to radicals… There is no solid cross-cutting economic, social and environmental study to create intelligent law. Environmental law is made only in silos. It does not achieve its objective of protection.” According to Laurent Cappelletti, we must work together towards an acceptable environmental law. The professor cites research on standard-setting that has identified the O.A.N.E process (Orchestration, Arbitration, Negotiation, Ethics).
Environmental demands vs vital needs: is a step back possible?
According to Christian Harbulot, three factors can explain the interests of the radical movement:
- How can a form of protest evolve after a failure? (1980s)
- How can one live off a rent-seeking position? Some people from civil society do very well from it.
- How did factions emerge within the elite? At the École des Mines de Paris, for example, a group decided that the theme of the energy transition could be promising in terms of career opportunities. “And this group positioned itself within the Ministry of Ecology and the CEA (French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission).”
“I would like to draw your attention to the notion of vital needs, which will become increasingly important in the years to come. What will tip things over are these survival issues. They will overwhelm environmental demands. We also note the radio silence of environmentalists on the return of questions about nuclear power.” Christian Harbulot
Before producing standards, we must therefore define our needs. This is Maslow’s pyramid: starting again from fundamental needs. We cannot want to protect the environment without thinking about upstream needs and downstream consequences. Sylvain Pelletreau mentions the concept of environmental sovereignty: “Everything must stem from the environment, but nothing from dogmatism.”
For Pascal Perri, we must collectively acknowledge that we were wrong and accept a step back. We have enough examples to show the dramatic consequences of this excess of standards, Laurent Cappelletti adds.
Environmental law and economic growth?
Can we say that there is a change of course in France? And how is this issue addressed by neighbouring countries? What makes it so that in France we have such a polarized debate? Because in Germany, for example, environmentalists are in government, Pascal Perri notes. But they are pragmatic, replies Loïk Le Floch Prigent:
“In France, we are pursuing an emotional policy. Hence the necessary return of technical authority. We have one of the parliaments with the fewest technicians. Yet technical knowledge is a prerequisite for action.”
“When Madame Pannier-Runacher tells us that the Fessenheim plant was closed because maintenance was not satisfactory, she is making a complete technical error. Maintenance of a nuclear power plant is ensured until it is shut down.”
According to Sylvain Pelletreau, today “we are seen less as pro-industry”. There are concrete examples showing that ecological radicalism leads to chaos, all across France. We must constantly repeat and educate so that we no longer have to deal with a Manichean vision of the bad guys and the good guys, but move towards a much more pragmatic vision. We must also define a direction: what do we want for the economy in France and, above all, for the population?
“The masks are coming off. We see it with the example of virtuous German wind turbines that operate thanks to gas and coal. I am counting above all on alternative employers’ movements.” (Loïk Le Floch Prigent)
We must integrate the making of environmental law into a systemic and transdisciplinary vision, and not leave environmental law to environmentalists alone. (Laurent Cappelletti)
We must ask ourselves the question: “how do we produce knowledge?” so that the answer is heard by the population. Build networks, combine skills. Industrialists must join forces to produce this knowledge and, above all, stop relying on instruments that no longer work, concludes Christian Harbulot.
