France's 47% Pesticide Cut Is Largely a Change of Yardstick, Not Real Use

France's Ecophyto Committee Unveils a Contested 47% Decline

France's pesticide reduction strategy produced an impressive number this week: a 47% fall in measured pesticide use compared with the 2011-2013 baseline, presented at Friday's meeting of the Ecophyto monitoring committee. Four ministers — Agriculture, Health, Research and Ecological Transition — attended alongside farm unions, environmental associations and public research scientists. The first Ecophyto plan, launched in 2008, had set a 50% reduction target within ten years, a deadline later pushed to 2025.

The catch is that the 2024 government changed the national measurement from the long-used Nodu volume indicator to the European HRI1 toxic-load indicator. That switch allows European comparisons, but it also changes what is being measured: HRI1 tracks harm to health by weighting substances according to toxicity, especially carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic classifications, rather than simply counting volumes applied.

The result is that a large part of the claimed decline is attributed to the near-disappearance of the most dangerous CMR1 substances and a significant fall in CMR2 substances, while overall pesticide use has plateaued for three or four years because alternative methods and innovations are not spreading quickly enough.

The meeting produced no new reduction target for coming years, and the budget for the Parsada research and farmer-support programme was left unspecified. Environmental groups say the political momentum behind reducing pesticide dependence has faded, citing this summer's reintroduction of acetamipride under the emergency agriculture law as a signal of retreat.

Why the 47% Is a Metric Story More Than a Farming Story

The HRI1 Switch: A Better Risk Measure or a Convenient Illusion?

The article's core tension is methodological. Nodu is a volume indicator well suited to a zero-pesticide goal; HRI1 is a toxicity indicator better at measuring what is dangerous in fields. A researcher quoted anonymously said HRI1 is more pertinent for measuring danger, but François Veillerette of Générations Futures argues the retroactive calculation creates an impression of reduction on some molecules that does not exist in reality. Because the curve falls partly from subgroup reclassification, the 47% figure is not a reliable proxy for what farmers actually applied.

Bans on CMR Substances Did Work, but the Plateau Is Real

What is verified is that banning the most hazardous compounds had a real effect: CMR1 substances have almost disappeared and CMR2 use has fallen sharply, which the article says has helped biocontrol products develop. The same indicator, however, hides the fact that total pesticide use has been flat for three or four years. That plateau reflects a gap between scientific mastery of alternative techniques and their diffusion into fields — a scale-up problem acknowledged by both scientists and industry.

Phytéis: From Product Sales to Paid Advisory Services

Emmanuelle Pabolletta, head of crop-protection manufacturers' body Phytéis, explicitly frames this as a business-model shift. Farmers must now combine several types of solutions, and advice that works in Normandy may not work elsewhere. Since farmers will buy fewer pesticide products, manufacturers will need to replace that revenue with consulting, training and regional support — or lose market share. This is an interpretation from industry, but it follows directly from the switch toward biocontrol and the acknowledged complexity of alternative practices.

The Missing Target and the Acetamipride Signal

No new reduction objective was set at the meeting. Environmental representatives argue the goal of reducing dependence on pesticides has effectively been abandoned. The reintroduction of acetamipride, even in a tightly controlled form, reinforces that perception and worries proponents of agroecology. The government's pledge to continue Parsada without a budget envelope adds uncertainty about whether the research and farmer support needed to break the plateau will actually be funded.

What the HRI1 Debate Means Next for Farmers and Input Makers

For the groups actually affected, the Ecophyto session leaves three concrete implications.

• Farmers: The 47% claim does not impose a new volume cut, but the CMR phase-outs continue to shrink the toolbox of the most hazardous substances. Practical field advice, training and region-specific protocols are becoming the main constraint; farmers who cannot access such support risk losing productivity while alternatives plateau.
• Pesticide and biocontrol manufacturers: Phytéis's own assessment points to lower product sales and higher demand for paid advisory and training services. Companies that do not build regional consulting capacity or expand biocontrol portfolios will face a shrinking revenue base as CMR products disappear.
• Policymakers: The concrete missing decisions are the Parsada budget and a post-2025 reduction target. Without a published budget and a transparent baseline under HRI1, the government's ability to defend the 47% figure will keep colliding with the credibility attacks from environmental associations.