France: is it useful to include the preservation of the environment in the Constitution?
The Constitutional Council declares the disciplinary powers of the French Anti-Doping Agency (Afld) contrary to the Constitution AFP / Archives
Text by: Anthony Lattier Follow
7 mins
Will the preservation of the environment be enshrined in the French Constitution?
The reform wanted by the Citizen's Convention for the climate and taken over by the government is being examined from this Tuesday by the deputies.
Emmanuel Macron has promised to submit it to a referendum if the National Assembly and the Senate manage to come to an agreement.
What could this reform be used for?
Publicity
Read more
The citizens of the Climate Convention applaud Emmanuel Macron.
It was last December 14th.
The President of the Republic has just accepted a strong demand from the 150 citizens: to organize a referendum on the inclusion in the Constitution of the preservation of the environment.
A month later, the constitutional reform project was adopted by the Council of Ministers.
It is debated from this Tuesday in the hemicycle of the National Assembly.
The text provides for including in Article 1 of the Constitution the “guarantee” of “the preservation of the environment and biological diversity” and the “fight against climate change.
They will appear in the same article as other major principles of the Republic such as secularism or equality before the law.
"Obligation to act"
Will this change anything?
The question arises: why add this sentence to the Constitution when there is already the 2005 Environmental Charter voted under Jacques Chirac and which has constitutional value?
For some jurists, this will not add much.
But for the Minister of Justice Éric Dupond-Moretti, it is on the contrary a question of taking a step forward in the fight for the climate: “
In the Environmental Charter, the protection of the environment is an objective towards which we must strive,
he told MEPs during committee discussions on February 16.
With the constitutional reform project, we suggest that you impose a constitutional obligation on the public authorities.
This is what is meant by the use of the terms "guarantee" and "fight".
"
In the text, which is very short, the choice of words is indeed capital.
For the Keeper of the Seals, the verbs chosen will give “
public authorities
” an “
obligation to act
” which “
may have consequences for their responsibility
”.
"
This means that in the future no more government, no local or territorial community will be able to turn away from this imperative of environmental protection
" supports the rapporteur of the text, the deputy La République en marche Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade .
“
It will not change everyday life,
explains for his part the deputy Ecology, democracy and solidarity, Matthieu Orphelin, who defends this long-standing proposal.
But this will allow, alongside principles that are already in the Constitution such as the freedom to undertake, to face the protection of the climate and biodiversity.
It can help, for example, to pass more ambitious laws.
"
Preserve and improve?
Some environmentalists still regret a too cautious formulation.
For the deputy ecologist Delphine Batho, the reform should mention not only the "
preservation
" but also and above all the "
improvement
" of the environment.
"
We must include in Article 1 of the Constitution the principle of non-regression or more exactly the principle of constant progression, that is to say that the French Constitution obliges the French nation to be able to make only one march forward for the protection of the environment and biodiversity
”.
For the elected representative, such a formulation could have made it possible, for example, to prevent Parliament from re-authorizing in December the use in certain cases of the use of
neonicotinoids
, these dangerous pesticides which had been banned.
Government and presidential majority however do not wish to follow this proposal.
“
We have verbs in the text that impose on us a virtual obligation of results and actions.
The notion of improvement is in our opinion a little vague and would risk having a much less impact than our current reform
”affirms Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade.
“We are heading towards regression!
"
In contrast, other elected officials believe that the constitutional amendment proposed by the government goes much too far.
“
We are heading towards regression!
alarmed the leader of the centrist senators Hervé Marseille.
The Senate will oppose the verb "guarantee" because if not any association, any group can seize the Constitutional Council and attack any kind of proposal, such as 5G, construction of roads, TGV or trams. , in the name of the defense of the environment.
"An argument that the Minister of Justice rejects:"
this constitutional bill does not place environmental protection above other constitutional principles.
On the other hand, it gives it new strength.
"
Legal specialists assure that the scope of the reform will depend, as often, on the way in which the Constitutional Council will interpret it and deal with it.
"
The Council may consider that this article does not add much in relation to the provisions of the Environmental Charter and therefore not modify its case law,
details Benjamin Morel, lecturer in public law at the University of Paris 2 .
The judge can also rely on this new section to increase his voluntarism in environment.
We will have the answer in ten years!
"
Political maneuver?
But will this reform go to the end?
Many doubt it.
To submit a text to a referendum, it must first be voted on in the same terms by the National Assembly and the Senate to agree on the same text.
However, the right is in the majority in the Senate and is opposed to the current formulation.
She prefers the verb “
favors
” to that of “
guarantee
”, which would reduce the scope of the reform.
Two scenarios are possible: either the National Assembly accepts a compromise text and the Head of State submits it to a referendum.
Either the Senate and the Assembly cannot agree, and there cannot be a referendum.
Emmanuel Macron will only have to lay the blame on the senators ...
MP Mathieu Orphelin is pessimistic.
Even if an agreement was found, "
impossible to organize a referendum before the end of the five-year term
" because of the sanitary conditions and the schedule of the polls already planned before the presidential election.
For him, as for other elected opposition members, this whole affair is a political maneuver on the part of the Head of State to skillfully bury an embarrassing proposal from the Citizens' Convention.
“
The citizens had extremely strong requests,
judges Senator Hervé Marseille.
To get by, the president proposed a constitutional reform, he kicked in touch knowing full well that the Senate will block.
So all that for that
?
It was perhaps not essential ...
"
Newsletter
Receive all international news directly in your mailbox
I subscribe
Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application
google-play-badge_FR
Environment
France
our selection