Nature Conservation Alert: 50-Year-Old Founding Law “Not Enough”

Enacted on July 10, 1976, the law concerning the protection of nature is one of the cornerstone texts of French environmental law. It represented a paradigm shift by stating that « the protection of natural spaces and landscapes, the preservation of animal and plant species, the maintenance of biological balances […] are of general interest ».

The law also established a legal framework for the protection of species and natural reserves, made impact studies mandatory for major development projects, and strengthened the role of nature protection associations. Unfortunately, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary, it is undergoing relaxations and deregulation attempts during this period of « ecological backlash » we are experiencing.

Environmental historian, president of the National Society for Nature Protection (SNPN) and vice-president of France Nature Environment, Rémi Luglia discusses the history and legacy of this foundational law for Decatur Metro.

Decatur Metro — How was the 1976 nature protection law a major turning point? 

Rémi Luglia — It’s a significant law because it structures nature protection. The absolutely key point is that it asserts that the protection of nature, landscapes, biological balances, and natural resources is a matter of general interest. This represents a major philosophical shift: nature is no longer just something to exploit, it becomes a common good.

The law also solidified tools that already existed but were scattered. It enhanced the protection of fauna and flora with national lists of protected species, recognized animals as sentient beings, and turned natural reserves into a truly flagship tool, building on and strengthening a system that had existed since the Camargue reserve, established by the SNPN in 1927.

But perhaps its main innovation was the impact study. The idea wasn’t to prevent developments, but to ensure they are carried out in the least destructive conditions possible for nature. All the planning ministries at the time opposed it, but it was ultimately adopted. The law also recognizes environmental protection associations through the environmental protection approval, giving them a real place in public consultations and decision-making bodies. It’s a first milestone in environmental democracy. It also prefigures the principle of “avoid, reduce, compensate” with what was then called environmental compensation.

This law was highly anticipated by naturalists and scientists. Early texts like the 1902 Paris Convention on bird protection and the 1906 Beauquier law [on the protection of natural sites] had already laid the groundwork. The idea of a comprehensive law on nature protection emerged as early as 1937, but it took nearly forty years to come to fruition. Thus, it was not a beginning, but the culmination of a movement that had started nearly a century earlier.

How has environmental protection been enhanced since this law? 

It’s a modern law, but relatively brief. Numerous implementing decrees were needed to clarify it. Some took years to appear and sometimes weakened its scope, particularly regarding impact studies. Despite this, the overall framework remained.

The 1976 law was subsequently codified and supplemented. The European Birds [1979] and Habitats, Fauna, Flora [1992] directives strengthened this legacy, as did new French tools, such as the real environmental obligations. The 2016 law [for the reconquest of biodiversity, nature, and landscapes] updated it with the principle of ecological solidarity, the principle of non-regression, strengthening the “avoid, reduce, compensate” principle, and recognizing ecological damage. The French Agency for Biodiversity, now the French Office for Biodiversity, also fits into this continuity.

This 2016 law also extended the 1976 intuition by developing environmental democracy. For example, the National Biodiversity Committee, which brings together nearly 150 stakeholders: businesses, unions, farmers, fishermen, associations, researchers, communities… The idea is to confront viewpoints to reach common positions.

Despite the implementation of this law, and well before the recent weakenings, biodiversity has continued to decline rapidly in our country since 1976. What has been lacking? 

Yes, one could say that this law was not enough: biodiversity continues to regress, as all reports show. But one might also wonder what would have happened if it hadn’t existed. It has still managed to curb a number of destructions and achieve real successes. The European beaver has benefited from enhanced protection, herons, which were disappearing before 1976, have returned everywhere in France, and diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey are generally faring much better than before.

Where the law fell short is in the face of major societal dynamics, notably the generalization of biocides in agriculture from the 1980s-1990s, with neonicotinoids, which have ravaged ordinary nature by destroying insects. It couldn’t halt the march of rampant productivism.

What are the major blows to the legacy of this law? 

Overall, it remained quite solid until recent years. At France Nature Environment, we talk about an illiberal turn starting in 2023, which deregulates under the pretext of simplification and challenges the rule of law.

Today, the situation is astounding. Governments yield to private interests and lobbies, where their predecessors had prioritized the general interest. The law and norms are now presented as constraints, although they primarily serve to protect what is most fragile and most important. Yet, it cannot be denied that humans and nature are interdependent, whether it’s water, climate, or ecosystem services like pollination, water regulation, or air purification. Denying this ignores all the science.

This is reflected in the agricultural emergency law, by attacks on environmental democracy with the reduction of the role of the National Public Debate Commission, the possibilities of referral or the deadlines for processing, but also by setbacks on protected species, protected areas, or financial means, like the reduction of the Green Fund. We also see it on certain major projects: at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, the general interest eventually prevailed, but on the A69 and the Caussade retention, we see a state that seeks to authorize very destructive arrangements.

The case of the wolf is very symbolic. We have a protected species that we can kill: it’s the world upside down. And now, they even want to allow these shootings in natural reserves, which represent barely 0.7 % of the French territory. To believe that the problem of the wolf is located there is an aberration. Behind the wolf, there will be the lynx, the bear, the golden jackal, and always the fox. It’s the entire place of predators in our ecosystems that is being questioned.

Are the current setbacks in environmental law, according to you, mere adaptations to the crisis facing certain sectors, particularly agriculture, or do they reflect a deeper philosophical change in our way of considering nature? 

In my view, we are witnessing the swan song of a productivist and intensive model that is dying. It is still very powerful, but it is heading straight for a wall: that of climate change, environmental pollution, human health, and even yields, which no longer increase despite pesticides and other so-called innovations.

The real problems mainly concern small breeders and mixed farming operations, which suffer from insufficient income. Reauthorizing neonicotinoids or allowing ever-larger farms does not address their difficulties at all. These measures mainly allow the system to continue to the benefit of the largest farms, at the expense of the general interest. We indeed see associations of general practitioners and oncologists opposing neonicotinoids because of their effects on human health.

It’s the same logic with wetlands. While we are experiencing heatwaves, torrential rains, and floods, proposals are still being made to eliminate the last wetlands. Yet, the IPCC clearly states: preserving and restoring them is one of the best ways to protect us against climate hazards.

What are your reasons for hope? 

I see three. First, environmental issues remain among the main concerns of the French, contrary to what some political leaders or some media say. No one wants to eat products full of pesticides, live next to a field where they are sprayed, or drink poor quality water. Most people aspire to live near beautiful nature, rich in species and without chemicals.

Then, there are the younger generations. As a teacher, I see young people highly sensitized to environmental issues and carrying strong values, both in terms of ecology and democracy.

Finally, there are the territories. At the level of municipalities, watershed areas, or around a mountain or river, stakeholders come together and find solutions. Residents are attached to their landscape, a clean river, a forest, or a nature reserve. We see this with the ZAN [zero net artificialization]: many territories had already figured out how to apply this policy and do not understand why the state is backtracking. This gap, for me, is a cause for hope. The difficulty is that today the government and, more broadly, the national representation, are completely disconnected from this local dynamic.