Version classiqueVersion mobile

La lutte antivectorielle en France

Didier Fontenille
Christophe Lagneau
Sylvie Lecollinet
et al.

General recommendations. Eight great priorities

Priority recommendation n° 2

Reset the legal framework and governance

Texte intégral

1The legal framework and governance for control of human disease vectors must be reviewed, in particular article L 3114-5 of the Public Health Code (rewritten after the law of 13 August 2004 which in its article 72 sets out the provisions for organizing the transfer of competence from the State).

2The prevention of vector-borne diseases is in these terms a public health issue coming under the general jurisdiction of the State. It would therefore be appropriate to devise, with a view to improving clarity, a unique legislative mechanism to cover the control of haematophage insects and other blood-sucking arthropods, vectors of human diseases. All the preceding provisions will thus have to be revised or altered, particularly those from 1964 which applied only to mosquitoes. This will involve a revision of the legislature and a new homogeneous codification (Public Health (CSP), Local Authorities (CGCT), Rural Code). It will be important to make the distinction between the policy of prevention, on the one hand, and the implementation of vector control, on the other, notably involving the deployment of mosquito destruction operations. In line with this, it will be important to leave agents of vector control services the possibility to enter private properties in order to fulfil their duties.

3Vector control must be incorporated into the mandates of the future Regional Health Agencies (ARS), and especially into the range of health and safety measures that will be under their responsibility. It will fall to the director-general of each ARS to determine a vector control plan, in liaison with the prefects, local authorities (département councils, municipalities) and operational actors (EIDs, GIPs).

4It must be stipulated that in a situation of crisis management, the prefect is the competent authority and that the human and material resources that the ARS director-general has available are put at his disposal.

5The Expert group emphasizes the fact that the State cannot on its own assume vector control and that legal tools for cooperation must be proposed in order to associate the local authorities, the municipalities in particular (in virtue of their planning and development obligations).

6In metropolitan France, the interdepartmental mosquito eradication syndicates, Ententes Interdépartementales de Démoustication (EIDs) will have to have a set of specifications resulting from a multi-year contract of objectives and means concluded with the ARS director-general.

7For the overseas départements and territories, it is recommended that Public Interest Groups (GIP) be set in place, leaving the possibility for département councils who wish it to have a right of option to continue to benefit from the means they have at their disposal, in the framework of a delegation of management. For animal health, vector control must be placed under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, of its food agency DGAL and its devolved services, of the Departmental veterinary Services (DDSVs). Vector control should be founded on a collaboration between the ARS services when this is justified by the nature of the disease or of the vectors.

© IRD Éditions, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation :

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search