Guillaume Sainteny is a writer and specialist in sustainable development and ecological taxation. He notably wrote
The climate that hides the forest: how the climate question obscures environmental problems
(Rue de l'échiquier, 2015).
To discover
PODCAST - Listen to the club Le Club Le Figaro Idées with Eugénie Bastié
During the agricultural crisis, the media and political leaders continued to present the relationships between agriculture and the environment in a structurally antagonistic manner.
We can regret this because it does not contribute to resolving either of the two crises - agricultural and environmental - which coexist and are linked.
Most of the media have taken up, without verifying them, a certain number of elements or slogans put forward by certain agricultural organizations, but which are inaccurate or must be qualified.
For example, the proclaimed over-transposition of European directives does not exist.
On the contrary, several studies and parliamentary reports have shown that France under-transposed and not over-transposed European directives.
The environment remains the primary sector of pre-litigation between France and the European Commission.
More precisely, France often transposes late.
It also transposes insufficiently and when it has transposed, its application of the directives often remains imperfect.
We can cite numerous examples relating to one or more of these situations: the birds directive, habitats, projects, plans and programs, nitrates, etc.
Another example, the 4% fallow rule does not concern all farms.
And when it applies, it does not at all mean a 4% reduction in production because the least productive land is generally fallowed.
Also read: “The “imaginary world” of Macronism has no influence on the very real world of the peasant”
The government's first decisions unnecessarily pitted agriculture and the environment against each other.
The resumption of the protest after these first announcements clearly shows that the environmental regression measures announced by the Prime Minister do not resolve the crisis which is based, above all, on an income problem.
The President of the Republic recalled, at the Agricultural Show, that resolving the current crisis should not and cannot be to the detriment of the environment.
The agro-environmental transition and the adaptation of agriculture to climate change are part of the solution and are in the interest of farmers themselves.
In fact, several concrete measures would make it possible to improve the situation of farmers while benefiting the environment.
However, they were not mentioned.
We can suggest a few.
A farmer and his lessor can conclude rural leases containing environmental clauses.
The interest is twofold.
On the one hand, the environment is better taken into account in agricultural practices.
On the other hand, this leads to a reduction in costs for the farmer.
Indeed, in this type of lease the lessee and the lessor are no longer bound by the minimum regulated rents.
For example, a farmer signing an environmental rural lease will no longer pay 140 euros/hectare on average in rental rent (which is already very low compared to neighboring countries) but 40 euros, or even less.
A farmer operating 100 hectares under this type of lease would save 10,000 euros per year in fixed costs.
And even more so because, in this mode of agriculture, inputs are used less.
However, the cost of inputs has increased significantly since 2021 and this increase is one of the major causes of the current crisis.
It would be desirable to exempt meadows from property taxes.
This would be beneficial both on an agricultural and social level by reducing the costs of breeders and on an environmental level by encouraging the conservation of meadows.
Guillaume Sainteny
Unfortunately, this type of lease is not very popular because it is not accompanied by any tax incentives.
A lessor who takes out a lease of this type agrees to lose more or less than 100 euros/hectare, but he still pays the same amounts of taxes in property tax, tax for chamber of agriculture, and transfer taxes.
And it remains taxed at the same rates for income tax and social security contributions.
He therefore has no interest in taking out a lease of this type.
To enable their development, the State should exempt income from rural environmental leases from income tax and social security contributions.
Due to the very modest amount of these revenues, the reduction in tax revenue would be very small.
And municipalities should have the possibility of exempting plots of land covered by an environmental rural lease from land tax, which is not the case today.
We know that farmers do not like being prescribed obligations.
The advantage of the environmental rural lease is that it does not impose any constraints.
It is based on a voluntary agreement of the parties.
A farmer decides for himself whether or not he wishes to enter into a lease of this type.
Same thing for the lessor.
The same goes for municipalities which would be free to decide whether or not to favor this type of lease on their territory, by exempting the plots concerned from property taxes.
They may wish to favor these leases for health reasons on sensitive plots: those which are close to homes or located in water catchment areas.
Read alsoClimate, agriculture: “Brussels’ return to earth”
Furthermore, today, the crisis in agriculture is even more a crisis in livestock farming.
However, on average, a hectare of meadow brings in less than a hectare of cereals but is taxed more.
This is absurd.
Especially since meadows are very favorable to the environment.
Unlike croplands, they store carbon, slow down flooding and erosion, cover soils in winter, are rich in biodiversity, etc.
It would be desirable to exempt meadows from property taxes or to greatly reduce the amount.
This would be beneficial both on an agricultural and social level by reducing the costs of breeders and on an environmental level by encouraging the conservation of meadows.
Likewise, we should think about remuneration for carbon storage in grasslands.
For farmers, this would provide additional income and an incentive to keep them going.
All of these mechanisms would benefit both farmers and the environment.
We can regret that they are not mentioned in the current debate.