Business as usual ?

The sudden resignation of Nicholas Hulot, from his post as Ministre de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire (Minister for Ecological and Soldarity-driven Transition) may have come as surprise by the manner and timing of his departure, but it is surely less of a surprise to those who have become used to the regular reports of misgivings about his role in government and his seeming inability to make a meaningful impact on France’s environmental and energy policies.

Nicholas Hulot, now 63, was, the pollsters tell us, the government’s most popular minister, well-known in France for many years as an environmental activist. He rose to fame through a series of TV programmes that he made and introduced, designed to illustrate the impact of our growth driven economic model on the natural environment and its responsibility in climate change. He set up a foundation to promote environmental responsibility but also, with the help of the large French company, L’Oréal, launched and sponsored a range of beauty products bearing the name of his TV show “Ushuaia”, from which he continues to make a comfortable living. Politically, he was courted by no less than three French presidents, Jacques Chirac, Nicholas Sarkozy and François Hollande, keen to enlist this popular public figure in an attempt to burnish their own green credentials. Although Hulot was happy to serve as an unofficial advisor, he did not, until persuaded to do so by Emmanuel Macron, accept a ministerial position, considering that he was more useful trying to influence the policies he advocates from outside government. Paradoxically, his 15-month stint as minister of Edouard Philippe’s government has proved that he was right. Temperamentally ill-suited to the cut and thrust of everyday politics, profoundly unhappy with opposition from both within the government, notably from the Minister of Agriculture, and outside it from lobbies of all sorts, he swallowed hard as many government decisions went against him – on the use of pesticides in agriculture, the reduction of France’s considerable nuclear capacity, the watering down of his attempts to promote animal welfare and many others. The presence of a well-known lobbyist at a meeting convened by the President with representatives of the hunting community seems to have been the last straw. The following morning, he announced on a radio programme, to the astonishment of even his interviewers, that, “unwilling to lie to myself any further”, he was leaving the government, without so much as notifying the President or the Prime Minister beforehand.

If this were just another case of strongly held views clashing with the inevitable compromises required by cabinet government, the story would be only one more example of many a civil society figure who has come to grief as a politician. As former socialist grandee, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, once pithily observed, “a minister either resigns or keeps his trap shut” (“Un ministre ça démissionne ou ça ferme sa gueule”). I fear however that this particular resignation is more significant, as it touches on the heart of the project that Emmanuel Macron has sought to promote, the main reason why this relatively unknown figure emerged from the shadows to set up his own party and conquer both the presidency and a whopping parliamentary majority in little more than a year. And also finally persuaded Nicholas Hulot to accept a formal political mandate.

Macron clearly sees himself as a man with a mission to profoundly transform France, harbouring a clear vision about what he wants to achieve and an unshakable belief in his ability to bring about the changes that the country has shirked so often in the past: freeing businesses from the shackles imposed by an often overbearing administration in order to create more jobs, make work pay and reduce unemployment, thereby reducing public spending and making France, particularly its public sector, leaner and more efficient.

There are many who share Macron’s view that France must accept radical change to achieve these goals, and they see him as the agent of that change. The resignation of Nicholas Hulot is an important signal that things are not going according to plan.  A transition towards a greener and less energy intensive economic model is clearly being resisted by deeply entrenched interests that have most to lose from it: the powerful nuclear lobby, afraid of France losing its technological expertise, a strong farming lobby, still wedded to its pesticide and energy fuelled quest for ever greater yields, to name just two. There are other signals too: the preparation of next year’s budget is constrained by an unexpected dip in growth, a rising deficit and fears in high places about the psychological impact of the pay-as-you-go income tax scheme, due to be introduced in January.  On the basis of what we know so far, the draft budget to be debated in parliament this autumn sounds decidedly unradical, based on little more than the time honoured methods of reducing the number of civil servants, cutting social benefits and surreptitiously increasing taxes.

In a word, after what looked like a promising start, the profound transformation that was Macron’s pledge to the French people seems to be running into the sand. The government and its supporters point to the policies of encouraging investment, making the labour market more flexible, promoting the training and retraining of workers and employees and plead patience. Such measures will of course take time to produce results, but there nevertheless seems to be little trace of a root-and-branch restructuring of central and local government that other countries like Canada, Sweden, or the UK have introduced in the past decades. On top of that, where is the evidence of a new paradigm reconciling economic growth with less pressure on natural resources and more renewable energies? At a time when Germany is implementing a radical decision to close all its nuclear power plants by 2022, there were reports yesterday that some experts in France recommend building no less than six new EPR reactors starting in 2025. After a series of official meetings earlier this year on food production and retailing, it is clear that the French are increasingly keen on organic produce and recycling, but supermarkets still vie with each other to sell processed foods laced with additives and fruit and vegetables raised on chemical fertilisers and pesticides at the lowest possible prices.

As Macron makes a start on a decisive year for his presidency, these questions remain unanswered.  The outcome of the budget debate, the name of the next minister of the environment or perhaps a fresh political initiative will either confirm that profound transformation is still on the agenda or, on the contrary, that France is back to business as usual.