Article published in Challenges, December 11, 2025
By revoking the environmental permit for the A69, the administrative court has reignited a debate that economic analyses have never been able to settle: beyond the numbers, it is our value system that is being put to the test.
At the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, the British government required EDF to build a sonar system to deter fish. According to experts, this system cost 800 million euros to save, on average, one salmon every ten years. In Montpellier, a court this year ordered EDF to shut down a wind farm for several months—resulting in an economic loss of 2 million euros—to potentially save four kestrels. In France, exemptions from laws prohibiting harm to protected species are granted only if the project serves an “imperative reason of major public interest.” And it is precisely because the A69 does not serve a compelling public interest given its environmental impacts—according to the judges—that the Toulouse Administrative Court revoked, on February 27, the environmental permit for the highway between the regional metropolis and Castres. The appeal hearing will begin on December 11.
France has set ambitious environmental goals. At the same time, successive governments have committed to defending purchasing power, a decisive factor in all our elections. Tensions between these clearly contradictory environmental and economic objectives continue to grow, particularly around airport projects (Nantes, Toulouse…), mega-reservoirs, wind turbines, and highways. Regarding the A69, in 2016, the government approved an analysis by the General Commission for Investment (CGI) that concluded the project would yield an overall net gain of more than 0.5 billion euros, including a benefit in terms of time and convenience estimated at 807 million, which is only very slightly offset by an environmental impact valued at 46 million. Clearly, this study had no effect on the opposition to the project or on the decision of the Toulouse judges. This is because, beyond the uncertainties regarding the highway’s traffic volume and the time saved for its users, we struggle to discuss the values that are dear to us—those of nature, our time, and our lives.
What is the value of the time saved thanks to the A69, a key aspect of the project? According to the CGI, it ranges from 10 to 20 euros per hour. Personally, I find this relatively low, given that hourly labor productivity is approximately 75 euros in our country. If a round trip from Castres to Toulouse saves an employee about an hour—and that hour is spent working—it would bring the country 75 euros in additional purchasing power, divided among net wages, taxes, and social security contributions for our social protection system, and profit for the employer. This time saved could be devoted to leisure, as the heavy tax burden on labor encourages us to do. But from the perspective of the public interest, this bias must be corrected by preserving the value of work. Therefore, the CGI underestimates the value of the time saved.
An estimated economic impact of 400 million…
At the same time, questions arise regarding the assessment of the A69’s environmental impacts. The concessionaire Atosca, which promises to replant five trees for every one cut down by the construction project, is responsible for felling 200 trees protected under the Environmental Code—a figure disputed by opponents. How much of its prosperity should our society be willing to sacrifice to save 200 trees, in the Tarn or elsewhere? Unless we place as much value on trees as on salmon at Hinkley Point, it is difficult to imagine that this question is a pressing one.
The national highway connecting the two towns has a relatively low accident rate, with an annual average of five accidents in recent years, including fewer than one fatality per year. Nevertheless, the roughly 100 lives that could be saved over the next century—each valued at 3 million and discounted at a 3.5% rate, as specified by the CGI—create a value of approximately 85 million for the A69.
There remains the thorny issue of land development, which the 2021 Climate and Resilience Act will require to be reduced to net zero. For the A69, we’re talking about approximately 200 hectares. How can we value—here as elsewhere—pristine nature consisting of forests, meadows, and ponds in the face of our insatiable desire for rapid mobility, spacious housing, or swimming pools? With the cost of restoration estimated at around 200 euros per square meter, this ecological impact can therefore be estimated at around 400 million—a significant amount. It’s worth noting that at this rate, the Grand Paris project, reindustrialization, and your swimming pool are all on shaky ground. There will be no effective and transparent public decision-making without a fundamental reevaluation of our system of economic and ecological values.
