142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Serie: ISTE Invoiced
- Sprache: Englisch
What are the new relationships between territories and farms?
Farms and Territory addresses this question by exploring a range of landscapes, from mountains to cereal plains, forged by different actors who exploit and protect resources such as land and wild – or domestic – biodiversity. These territories are also the site of renewed interactions between farms for the use of biomass, whether for methanization or herd feeding.
This book focuses on the various methods and tools used to diagnose, design or evaluate agricultural dynamics in territories: database matching, material and energy flow calculations, codesign approaches, etc. In short, this book illustrates the diversity of work carried out at the farm–territory interface by research teams to understand changes in the agricultural world and the ecological, economic and societal impacts.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 569
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
1 Which Land Resources to Adopt for an Ecological Transition of Agri-Food Systems? A Cross-View of Law and Sociology
1.1. Legal framework and contractual practices in farming: towards a greening of land tools?
1.2. Changes in agricultural landholding structures: a challenge for the transition of agri-food systems and generational renewal
1.3. The multifunctionality of agricultural land in food systems
1.4. Conclusion and perspectives
1.5. References
2 Synergies between Animal Husbandry and Forests for the Development of Agroecological Systems in Middle Mountain and Mediterranean Foothill Regions: Comparative Study of the Limousine Mountain and the Lodevois
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Lodevois and the Limousine Mountain: a disconnection between animal husbandry and forestry
2.3. Frugal agropastoral systems: putting grazing back at the heart of herd feeding, especially in forest ecosystems
2.4. Obstacles to the use of wooded areas on the Limousine Mountain and the Lodevois: an overview
2.5. Ways to promote the (re)connection between livestock and forests
2.6. Conclusion
2.7. References
3 Crop–Livestock Interaction at the Territorial Scale: Tools and Methods to Support Its Development
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Specialization and its ramifications
3.3. Characteristics of systems integrating crops and livestock
3.4. Spatial and temporal coordinations on a territorial scale
3.5. Types of actors involved and forms of partnership
3.6. Methods for diagnosing, designing, evaluating and supporting the development of these systems
3.7. Conclusion
3.8. References
4 Genetic Choices, Farming Systems and Territories
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Organization of animal breeding and the role of farmers, farming systems and links to the territory
4.3. Collective breeding goals and territories
4.4. Breeds, farmers’ collectives and other territorial components: diversity of relationships
4.5. Individual farmers’ decisions and how they relate to breeding collectives’ decisions
4.6. Conclusion
4.7. References
5 Town Microfarms, Country Microfarms in Fields: Innovative Systems in Contrasting Territories
5.1. Innovative projects in response to a variety of socio-ecological territorial challenges
5.2. Multiple innovations driven by new farmer profiles
5.3. Discussion and perspectives
5.4. References
6 The Rise of Professional Gathering in Rural Areas
6.1. Introduction
6.2. A centuries-old business embedded in agroecosystems
6.3. Make a living by gathering
6.4. Gathering territories and rural areas: separate paths or mutual learning?
6.5. Conclusion
6.6. References
7 How Can Biodiversity Be Taken into Account on Farm Territories?
7.1. What is biodiversity in agricultural landscapes?
7.2. Biodiversity as seen by farmers
7.3. Can agriculture and biodiversity conciliation occur at the farm territory level?
7.4. How can we support biodiversity conservation at farm level?
7.5. Examples of integrating biodiversity into farm projects: challenges, results and difficulties
7.6. Monitoring biodiversity
7.7. Conclusion
7.8. References
8 Sociometabolic Approaches to Conceptualizing and Supporting Agri-Food Transitions
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Society’s metabolism: overview of epistemological foundations and current research trends
8.3. Agriculture in the metabolism of societies
8.4. For agri-food metabolism approaches at the local scale
8.5. Discussion: avenues for further exploration and prospects for cross-disciplinary work between sociometabolic approaches and agronomy
8.6. Conclusion
8.7. References
9 Farms in the Transition to Sustainable Food in Urban Areas: The Role of Collective Catering
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Collective catering: a vector for sustainable food practices
9.3. Adapting agricultural production to meet growing demand for sustainable food: the example of Île-de-France
9.4. Conclusion
9.5. References
10 Farming and the Circular Economy in Territories: Recycling Urban Waste in Agriculture
10.1. Introduction
10.2. From urban waste to organic fertilizer
10.3. Regulations governing the return of urban OWPs to the soil in agriculture
10.4. How to meet the needs of agriculture
10.5. What are the challenges associated with the agricultural recycling of municipal waste?
10.6. Environmental balance sheet
10.7. Value chain organization
10.8. Farmers’ perception of agricultural recycling of urban OWPs and social acceptability
10.9. Conclusion
10.10. Reference
11 Biogas and Biomass Valorization Circuits at the Farm and Territory Levels
11.1. Introduction
11.2. New biomass flows find new uses in agriculture
11.3. By modifying the flows and uses of biomass, biogas production renews the links between farms and territory: a case study from Grand Est
11.4. New sustainability challenges emerge on farms and in territories
11.5. A biogas development policy faced with the challenge of current regulatory dynamics?
11.6. Conclusion
11.7. Reference
12 Databases for Analyzing Relationships Between Farm Holdings and Territories
12.1. Interest in and availability of databases for the analysis of farm–territory relationships
12.2. Databases
12.3. SI-BOAT: an information system for agri-food systems
12.4. Enhancing the impact of RPG: the RPG Explorer project
12.5. Conclusion
12.6. References
12.7. Webography for further information or access to the databases cited
Conclusion
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 3
Table 3.1.
Examples of recent projects on crop–livestock interactions
Table 3.2.
Examples of methods and tools to diagnose, design, evaluate or prov
...
Chapter 4
Table 4.1.
Some characteristics of the more commonly domesticated species and
...
Table 4.2.
Number of recognized breeds and local breeds of domestic herbivores
...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1.
Available and implemented OAB protocols and associated ecosystem se
...
Table 7.2.
Biodiversity indicators used in the French National Biodiversity St
...
Chapter 9
Table 9.1.
Diversity of public procurement procedures
Table 9.2.
Barriers to organic and/or local food sourcing
Chapter 10
Table 10.1.
Main current or possible treatments by the type of urban organic w
...
Table 10.2.
Main urban organic waste products (OWPs) and their fertilizing and
...
Table 10.3.
Key legislations by the type of urban organic waste products (OWPs
...
Table 10.4.
Nutrient inputs for different urban organic waste product (OWP) ap
...
Table 10.5.
Main contaminants in urban OWPs and associated risks (according to
...
Chapter 11
Table 11.1.
Table of anaerobic digestion power of some inputs. The anaerobic d
...
Table 11.2.
Translated verbatim from biogas farmers (authors’ translation)
...
Chapter 12
Table 12.1.
List of databases cited in this chapter with their acronyms, main
...
Table 12.2.
Elements of characterization of farm holdings (FHs) raising sheep
...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1.
Location of the Limousine Mountain and the Lodevois
Figure 2.2.
Forest cover of the Limousine Mountain and the Lodevois
Figure 2.3.
Typical forage calendar for dairy ewes in the Lodevois in the 1950
...
Figure 2.4.
Typical forage calendar for suckler ewes (left) and cows (right) o
...
Figure 2.5.
Composition and structure of forests in the Lodevois and Limousine
...
Figure 2.6.
Comparative forage calendars between the predominant system (left)
...
Figure 2.7.
Comparison of the formation of net value added per ewe for three s
...
Figure 2.8.
Comparison of incomes per family worker and their formation for th
...
Figure 2.9.
Sheep herding on the Limousine Mountain: on a young softwood plant
...
Figure 2.10.
Selective cutting of oak groves to stimulate tasseling (left) and
...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1.
Specialization in livestock production in Brittany: OTEX by munici
...
Figure 3.2.
OTEX, “Technical and Economic Orientation of Farms’, in France, RG
...
Figure 3.3.
Representation of systems integrating crops and livestock based on
...
Figure 3.4.
Spatio-temporal coordination of systems to define four types of in
...
Figure 3.5.
Itinerary of an itinerant shepherd in Île-de-France in 2018
Figure 3.6.
Ewes grazing on a cover crop, POSCIF © project
Figure 3.7.
Flows associated with the raw materials used in dairy cow rations
...
Figure 3.8.
Flows associated with the development of a methanization unit on t
...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1.
Intercropping on no-till soil in the greenhouse of a microfarm in
...
Figure 5.2.
Permanent beds (involving fixed paths to limit compaction and shal
...
Figure 5.3.
Alban’s microfarm interacting with the other agricultural activiti
...
Figure 5.4.
Les Loges microfarm project. Image used with permission of the far
...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1.
Gathering sea buckthorn
(
Hippophae Rhamnoides L.) by the river, Ha
...
Figure 6.2.
Gathering elderberry (
Sambucus nigra
L.), Hautes-Alpes (2023)
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1.
The 11 selected target species. From top to bottom and left to rig
...
Figure 7.2.
Project dashboard for the skylark (
Alauda arvensis
).
Figure 7.3.
Examples of practices implemented in 2021 in favor of the skylark:
...
Figure 7.4.
Stages in the process and learning cycles
Figure 7.5.
Examples of work carried out. a: Trimming the hedge to produce woo
...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1.
Diagram of an agri-food system. Several key issues can be addresse
...
Figure 8.2.
Illustration of the agri-food metabolism of the Saclay Plateau (~
...
Figure 8.3.
Three territorial fictions to support reflection on the future tra
...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1.
Main sources of municipal organic waste in France (data source: M
...
Figure 10.2.
Surplus in apparent nitrogen mineralization on the QualiAgro site
...
Figure 10.3.
Nutrients available through recycling of OWPs on the plain of Ver
...
Figure 10.4.
Average annual carbon storage over 30 years enabled by organic wa
...
Figure 10.5.
Spreading digestate from anaerobic digestion with a slurry tanker
...
Figure 10.6.
Nitrogen losses (in red) following fertilizer application. Action
...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1.
Photo of an agricultural biogas digester. The materials to be dig
...
Figure 11.2.
A 10-year price trend for four agro-industrial byproducts and bio
...
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1.
Evolution of Level 1 (first two lines) and Level 2 (all lines) RP
...
Figure 12.2.
Summary of the various databases described in this chapter, accor
...
Figure 12.3.
How SI-BOAT works
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
Begin Reading
Conclusion
List of Authors
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
SCIENCES
Agronomy and Food Science, Field Directors – Jack Legrand and Gilles Trystram
Agronomy, Subject Heads – Yves Coquet, Marianne Le Bail and Jean Roger-Estrade
Farms and Territory
Coordinated by
Philippe Martin
Solène Pissonnier
First published 2025 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUKwww.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USAwww.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2025The rights of Philippe Martin and Solène Pissonnier to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025939455
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78945-226-6
ERC code:
LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology, and Molecular and Biosystems Engineering
LS9_3 Applied animal sciences (including animal breeding, veterinary sciences, animal husbandry, animal welfare, aquaculture, fisheries, insect gene drive)
LS9_4 Applied plant sciences (including crop production, plant breeding, agroecology, forestry, soil biology)
LS9_5 Food sciences (including food technology, food safety, nutrition)
SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space
SH2_9 Urban, regional and rural studies
SH2_10 Land use and regional planning
SH2_11 Human, economic and social geography
The manufacturer’s authorized representative according to the EU General Product Safety Regulation is Wiley-VCH GmbH, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany, e-mail: [email protected].
Introduction
Philippe MARTIN and Solène PISSONNIER
Paris Saclay University, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR SADAPT, Palaiseau, France
The book you are holding in your hands does not claim to be an exhaustive account of “farms and territories”. The purpose is rather to start one on a journey, just as one may embark on journeys to visit sites of significant interest. Each of these journeys is based on a particular point of view and cannot by itself cover the entire subject. The same is true of this book, edited by two agronomists and influenced by their own experiences of the subject, as well as the interdisciplinary collaborations they have had with colleagues at AgroParisTech and via the laboratories with whom they interact with on their research. This book complements others that have proposed their own journeys. This book is not entirely neutral and is part of a broader perspective on the sustainability and the agroecological transition of farmlands in their local territory.
The book begins by taking a look at land use, which supports both farms and the agroecological transition, through the dual lens of a lawyer and a sociologist. The land can be used to grow a variety of crops, as well as livestock. It is this link between livestock farming and the land that is examined in the three following chapters. The first, from an agrarian systems perspective, looks at the dynamics of territories located in foothill and mid-mountain areas, which are not very suitable for arable farming, and where livestock farming is combined with forestry. The second chapter looks at possible synergies between crop and livestock farming at a territorial scale, at a time when regional specialization is still at work, accompanied by the gradual disappearance of mixed crop–livestock systems within the same farm. The third chapter in the series deals with a resource just as important as land, namely genetic resources, and looks at the territorial management in terms of animal husbandry, bearing in mind that the question also applies to plants, although this is not addressed in this work.
After these three chapters on livestock farming, the journey takes a different route and looks at some relatively atypical farms. Starting off with microfarms, it distinguishes between field and city microfarms. It then moves on to a chapter about gatherers who, like itinerant shepherds, collect their crop production where they have not sown it.
We then shift our gaze to analyze farms and their territorial integration. Here we examine how biodiversity is taken into account within farming territories.
We then return to the question of biomass produced in agriculture, addressed through four chapters. The first sets out the foundations of the territorial metabolism approach, in which territories are considered as organisms that organize the flow of matter from one compartment to another. From this point of view, we shall take a closer look at the food dimension, and thus at transfers from fields to urban areas. We next look at the role of agriculture as a producer and user of organic waste products (including urban waste). In the last point of this series, we make a closer examination of methanization, which produces gas from waste before returning it to the soil. Methanization also raises the question of dedicated agricultural production, which is thus removed from territorial metabolism for human or animal consumption.
Dealing with the links between territory and farm raises methodological issues of data access. The final chapter presents a wide range of databases that can be used to inform these relationships, as well as tools that can be used to enhance the value of these databases.
The diversity of the themes addressed in these 12 chapters is intended to stimulate reflection on the links between farms and territories. We hope that the various examples presented here will enrich readers’ knowledge across an expansive range of issues.
1Which Land Resources to Adopt for an Ecological Transition of Agri-Food Systems? A Cross-View of Law and Sociology
Pierre-Etienne BOUILLOT1 and Romain MELOT2
1 Paris Saclay University, AgroParisTech, Palaiseau, France
2 Paris Saclay University, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR SADAPT, Palaiseau, France
In this chapter, we present the principal issues in current legal provisions relating to agricultural land resources, taking as our point of observation the tools and dynamics that are contributing to the transition of agri-food systems. We offer a dual legal and sociological perspective on these developments, addressing both the analysis of legal developments and their implementation and mobilization by social actors through empirical studies. We focus mainly on the French institutional framework, supplemented by references to empirical work in developed countries. Without aiming to be exhaustive, our aim is to provide an overview of the main legal instruments that contribute to the greening of agricultural land policies, as greening can be defined as “a process by which the environment is taken into account in public policies, organizations and even professional practices” (Mormont 2013, authors’ translation).
1.1. Legal framework and contractual practices in farming: towards a greening of land tools?
While agricultural policies are largely defined at the EU level, one of the particularities of the legal framework for farmland is that it remains largely dependent on the national legal framework. In the context of French law, we can observe a movement towards the greening of land tenure tools, in parallel with the integration of environmental objectives into community law, which can be seen by examining the legal provisions that define the administrative framework for access to land and contractual obligations.
1.1.1. Forms of authorization over access to land
1.1.1.1. The latest on rural land development
Of the three rural land development procedures provided for under Article L. 121-1 of the CRPM1 – agricultural and forestry land development, exchanges and amicable transfers of rural real estate and the reclamation of uncultivated land – we focus on developments in the first to understand the greening of rural land development. To this end, we need to return briefly to its origins: land consolidation. This is a relatively old procedure, whose first legal foundations were laid out by a law, dated November 27, 1918. The reforms that this procedure has undergone have each brought new elements to the process, making land consolidation one of the major tools for regional planning in the service of economic and social development. On the one hand, rural land consolidation has been given the objective of increasing farm productivity, and, on the other, it accompanies regional development when combined with major works or urban planning operations. While economic and social considerations originally governed the redistribution of land, the environmental consequences of land consolidation (flooding, erosion, damage to biodiversity) have led the legislator to gradually introduce corrective measures to the procedure.
After the law of July 12, 1983 (no. 83-630), the land survey was supplemented with an environmental impact study. As the reorganization of agricultural land also involves related work (e.g. hedge removal, road modification), it became necessary to analyze the environmental impact of these modifications. The purpose of the inquiry is to inform the public and gather their opinions, suggestions and counterproposals (Lorvellec 1988). The law of February 23, 2005 (no. 2005-157) introduced far-reaching changes to rural land development and, in particular, to the various land consolidation procedures. Article L. 121-1 of the CRPM sets a new common goal for the various land development methods, which is “to ensure the development of rural natural areas [...] in compliance with the objectives mentioned in Articles L. 111-1 and L. 111-2” (authors’ translation), which include environmental objectives. Article L. 123-1 of the CRPM still states that the main aim of this procedure is to improve the agricultural use of rural properties, so as to create “rural holdings in a single block or with large, well-grouped plots” (authors’ translation). While the main aim is still to improve farming operations by rationalizing farm labor productivity, the agricultural land development procedure has been enriched by environmental considerations.
The law of August 8, 2016, for the reconquest of biodiversity (no. 2016-1087) added the possibility that the rural development of the perimeter in which the procedure is implemented could enable “the use of parcels for natural, agricultural or forestry purposes with a view to preserving the environment” (authors’ translation). By way of example, the prefect can introduce prescriptions to encourage the conservation of cultivated wetlands as natural grasslands by prohibiting drainage and filling (Guyet 2016). Previously, the only way to legitimize the land consolidation process from an environmental standpoint was through an impact study. This was reinforced by the decree of March 30, 2006 (no. 2006-394) and is divided into two parts. The first is similar to what was previously required, i.e. a public inquiry including an analysis of the land and an environmental study (CRPM, R. 123-9). The second concerns environmental recommendations relating, among other things, to the preservation of natural areas and the prevention of natural hazards. These are among the provisions common to all land development methods (C. rur., R. 121-20). In addition to this development, which above all requires the administration to take into account the impact on the environment before authorizing land reorganization (Struillou 2002), other rules demonstrate a more substantial evolution, such as the extension of the role of the communes in the development of land.
1.1.1.2. Mechanisms for regulating access to land: farming authorizations
The administrative regulation of access to land through the granting of farming authorizations, which characterizes the policy known as le contrôle des structures (translated here as farming authorizations), is unique to France among developed countries. It is a legacy of the reforms introduced in the early 1960s to regulate the rural land market in the context of agricultural modernization (Boinon 2011). Under Article L. 331-2 of the CRPM, farmers planning to develop an area of land on the same farm that exceeds the threshold set by the regional master plan for agricultural holdings are required to apply for prior authorization. The validity of the lease is subject to obtaining this authorization. The land actually farmed must be taken into account, even if it is provided free of charge (Cass. Civ. 3e, November 26, 2008, no. 07-16.679).
According to Article L. 331-1 of the CRPM, farming authorization is expressly aimed at the installation of new farmers, rather than the expansion of existing farms. The aim is to limit the expansion of farms, which would prevent new installations. In particular, this objective helps to maintain activity in rural areas and the corresponding population in order to occupy the whole territory. However, legislative action has not stemmed the decline in the number of farms. Smalland medium-sized farms are the hardest hit. The disappearance of these farms has led to a concentration of land on the largest farms. More recently, environmental considerations have been added to the initial objective of promoting access to land and limiting land concentration. The reform of the 2014 Law on the Future of Agriculture2 (no. 2014-1170 of the loi d’avenir pour l’agriculture de 2014) makes it possible to combine economic, social and environmental objectives (CRPM, Art. L. 331-1 et seq.).
A comparative study of farm master plans that define local priorities for the allocation of farming authorizations (first on a departmental scale, then on a regional scale after the 2014 law) shows that this consideration of environmental objectives nevertheless remains variable depending on the territory (Guéringer 2023). Research into the implementation of farming authorizations also highlights that, in the event of competition between farmers for the allocation of authorization to farm, environmental considerations are still rarely mobilized (Piet et al. 2021). In addition, conditions of access to information on the land market are sometimes unfavorable to project developers from non-agricultural backgrounds, who are often committed to the agroecological transition (Hobeika 2013; Baysse-Lainé 2020).
1.1.1.3. Land development companies (SAFERs): interventions on the land market
Sociétés d’Aménagement Foncier et d’Établissement Rural (SAFERs, Land Development and Rural Development Companies) were created by the law of August 5, 1960 (no. 60-808). They are private-sector bodies that take the form of limited companies, although they are similar to associations in that they are prohibited from pursuing profit-making objectives. Their mission is to channel the agricultural land market and promote rural development, and to this end, they have been given the means to purchase land freely offered for sale by landowners and resell it to farmers in accordance with legal objectives. As such, they have the right of pre-emption that enables them to acquire land and farms on a priority basis, with the aim of selling them on. The exercise of this right concerns all agricultural property sales, since the SAFERs are informed by the notary before each sale. The SAFERs therefore play an important role in controlling and guiding the land market, particularly in areas where the majority of farmers are direct tenants. This importance is not only measured when the right of pre-emption is exercised. As this right can be exercised for every sale, sellers often prefer to make an amicable sale to SAFERs rather than try to sell their property to someone else, who would undoubtedly be put off by the SAFERs’ intervention. However, this system can be circumvented using corporate techniques (see infra).
In fact, in the event of the sale of an agricultural property for valuable consideration, the seller’s right of ownership and contractual freedom are significantly attenuated, but the exercise of the right of pre-emption is strictly circumscribed, since it can only be exercised in accordance with precise objectives. As an instrument of land policy, SAFERs’ intervention must comply with the objectives set by this policy. Their delimitation makes it possible to justify the infringement of property rights and contractual freedom. Until the law of July 9, 1999, Article L. 143-2 of the CRPM limited the exercise of the right of pre-emption to the pursuit of economic and social objectives. Whether or not the effects of exercising the right of pre-emption are in line with one of these objectives is strictly authorized by the judicial judge, who verifies the act’s conformity with the general interest, as expressed here by the objectives defined by the law. Indeed, as case law has repeatedly affirmed, it is impossible to rely on a reason other than those expressed by the legislator (e.g. Cass. civ. 3e, September 25, 2002, no. 01-11.224).
Up until 1999, SAFERs were required to exercise their right of pre-emption in accordance with the aforementioned objectives, which excluded any reference to environmental protection. The Agricultural Orientation Act of July 9, 1999, amended Article L. 141-1 of the CRPM, concerning the missions assigned to the SAFERs, so as to implement “the land component of the policy for the planning and sustainable development of rural areas” (authors’ translation). This law added an eighth purpose to Article L. 143-2 of the CRPM relating to the exercise of the right of pre-emption by SAFERs: “the implementation of landscape enhancement and environmental protection projects approved by the State or local authorities and their public establishments” (authors’ translation). Since the law of February 23, 2005, on the development of rural areas (Law no. 2005-157), SAFERs have also been required to contribute to “the diversity of landscapes, the protection of natural resources and the maintenance of biological diversity” (authors’ translation). This new mission is reflected in the addition of a new objective to the exercise of the right of pre-emption, namely, to develop peri-urban agricultural and natural areas. Therefore, in partnership with the department, SAFERs can help maintain an agricultural or natural green belt around towns and cities.
As environmental concerns are taken into account in pre-emption tools, the number of holders of this right is expanding beyond strictly agricultural bodies, with local authorities becoming increasingly involved. The departments, which also have pre-emptive rights over sensitive natural areas, have been involved since 2005 in the perimeters for the “protection of peri-urban agricultural and natural areas”3 (Struillou and Joye 2015). More recently, communes (or their groupings and mixed syndicates) located in a water catchment area are also empowered to apply to the prefect for the institution of an agricultural right of pre-emption for reasons of water quality preservation (Law no. 2019-1461 of December 27, 2019 relating to involvement in local life and the proximity of public action, codified in Art. L. 218-1 et seq. of the Code de l’urbanisme; decree no. 2022-1223 of September 10, 2022).
It should be added that the CRPM does not impose any conciliation or hierarchy between the various economic, social and environmental objectives assigned to the SAFER. For example, Article L. 143-3 of the CRPM merely states that the pre-emption decision must always be justified by reference to one or more of these objectives. Furthermore, case law specifies that not all objectives need to be pursued simultaneously (Cass. Civ. 3e, October 13, 2010).
The regulation of the agricultural market through the right of pre-emption has yet to be empirically documented in the social sciences. Sociological studies have shown that the missions of SAFERs have evolved from their initial objectives of restructuring and consolidating farms in a context of agricultural modernization to a role as local experts in the land market, a development that is not without its tensions (Sencébé et al. 2013). Research in economics shows that their impact has been positive, over the long term, in containing inequalities in farm size (Piet et al. 2012). At the local level, a study carried out in the Île-de-France region on SAFER pre-emptions requested by local authorities concludes that the latter’s concerns are often linked to motives other than environmental preservation or local food supply (fight against informal housing) (Bignebat et al. 2022). The broadening of the spectrum of actors with pre-emptive rights does not always mean that greening objectives are gaining ground.
1.1.2. A renewed framework for contractual land management practices
The greening of the legal framework governing agricultural land in France is also reflected in the rules governing contractual relations.
This phenomenon primarily concerns rental relationships. While land can be farmed by the owner, they can also grant a third party the right to farm the land, which is the case for the vast majority of land in France. The absolute nature of ownership and contractual freedom has been tempered by rural law. These limitations are mainly to be found in the specific provisions governing rural leases. The general framework of the “status of tenant farming”4 , inherited from the post-war period, establishes a series of protections for the farmer (notably the right to renewal and the right of pre-emption), while regulating the rental market through an administrative mechanism of rent control. The evolution of these rules governing access to land bears witness to the fact that they have been put at the service of economic, social and, more recently, environmental objectives.
For example, the ban on penalizing lessees for adopting environmentally friendly practices was recognized by the July 9, 1999, law on agricultural policy (Law no. 99-574). This prohibits lessors from seeking termination of a lease on the grounds that the lessee has implemented practices that respect the environment, water or product quality, or preserve biodiversity on the leased land.
Since the 2006 law on agricultural policy (Law no. 2006-11), it has also been possible to insert environmental clauses into rural leases, in order to promote the agroecological transition by obliging the lessee to implement environmentally friendly farming practices (L. 411-27 CRPM), such as not turning over grassland, limiting or banning the use of plant protection products or fertilizers, and growing or raising livestock in accordance with organic farming specifications (R. 411-9-11-1 CRPM). The conditions for the inclusion of these clauses, which were initially very limited, have been broadened with each successive reform.
Outside the conditions set out in Article L. 411-27 of the CRPM, the inclusion of environmental clauses seems possible (Bodiguel 2011). A broader integration of environmental clauses into the general framework of the farming statute has been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Cour de cassation. In two rulings handed down in 2020, it recognized that non-compliance with environmental clauses could constitute grounds for terminating a rural lease (e.g. Cass. 3e civ., February 6, 2020, no. 18-25460, Cass. 3e civ., November 19, 2020, no. 19-21.348 and Cass. 3e civ., November 17, 2021, no. 20-10.934). This development in case law has been analyzed as an invitation to lessors to opt for a lease containing environmental clauses outside the framework provided by Article L. 411-27 of the CRPM (Crevel 2021).
Although this is not the qualification provided for by the CRPM, it is referred to as an environmental rural lease. The use of these environmental leases is notably supported by the associative movement, with a movement such as Terre de liens (Land Ties), for example, taking the line of only supporting installation projects within this contractual framework (Lombard and Baysse Lainé 2019).
More recently, the greening of the legal contractual framework governing agricultural land has extended beyond the rental relationship between the lessor and farmer to include the management of rural property as such, through the notion of a real environmental obligation. This obligation takes the form of a voluntary commitment by the owner, formalized in a contract concluded with a public entity (or a private entity acting to protect the environment). The obligation is real in the sense that it is attached not to the person of the owner, but to the property, and thus endures over the long term in the event of sale. The provisions stemming from the 2016 law specify that the purpose of these obligations is “the maintenance, conservation, management or restoration of elements of biodiversity or ecological functions” (authors’ translation) and that they can be used “for offsetting purposes” (Law no. 2016-1087 of August 8, 2016, for the reconquest of biodiversity, nature and landscapes, codified at Art. L. 132-3 and seq. in the Environment Code). These obligations can be granted by a landlord and imposed on the lessee under a rural lease, if these obligations are not incompatible with the status of tenant farming. Otherwise, it will be necessary to revise the lease to include environmental clauses as provided for in Article L. 411-27 CRPM (Bosse-Platière and Lucas 2020).
International social science research on the subject frequently aims to assess the effectiveness of these contractualization practices, focusing in particular on the place of owners in the systems of actors. To what extent do stakeholders take advantage of the proposed tools? How effective are contractual solutions or negotiation approaches? Research focusing on contractualization practices with landowners has focused in particular on conservation easements granted by public bodies or associations (land trusts), which are present in common law countries and have inspired the French legal framework for environmental obligations. In the United States, for example, the Uniform Conservation Easement Act defines conservation easements as obligations whose purposes are “the protection of natural resources, the maintenance of air or water quality, or the preservation of historic or cultural features of real property” (Richardson and Bernard 2011, authors’ translation).
The limits of contractualization practices lie in the difficulty of reconciling individualized land negotiation with strategic planning. Local agreements, often negotiated on an ad hoc basis, do not always make it possible to agglomerate continuous areas (Stoms et al. 2009). In the areas concerned, agricultural land remains hemmed in by the advance of dispersed urbanization. What is more, protected areas are not always the most strategic, since negotiations depend on the goodwill of landowners, and the effectiveness of the system is sometimes limited (Brinkley 2012). Furthermore, conservation easements can give rise to complex financial arrangements in the context of ecological compensation (Barral 2020). Finally, as an example of the financial arrangements for conservation easements in the United States in the context of ecological offsetting, among the contractual practices associated with agricultural land, we might mention land parcel exchange practices, which can be either permanent or temporary in nature. The practice of exchanging plots of land between farmers has been the subject of empirical research in western (Pauchard et al. 2016) and northern (Dongmo 2023) France, where its contribution to reducing agricultural pressures on the environment is debated.
1.2. Changes in agricultural landholding structures: a challenge for the transition of agri-food systems and generational renewal
1.2.1. Access to agricultural land for start-ups and the challenge of generational renewal
The demographic crisis in agriculture – a marked aging of farm managers coupled with a shortage of young project leaders – is a phenomenon that affects all EU member states, and for this reason remains an issue regularly identified by the Common Agricultural Policy in its various evolutions. Compared to the situation in France, this crisis is even more marked in southern and eastern European countries. This is due in particular to the land tenure structure of these countries, where small farms owned by older farmers predominate. This is particularly the case in the Mediterranean basin, where agricultural land is traditionally fragmented, or in certain former Soviet states, where the transition to a market economy in the 1990s led to the creation of agricultural micro-owners (Zagata and Sutherland 2015).
Market characteristics can contribute to this demographic crisis, sometimes for opposite reasons. In the UK, high land values, which are poorly regulated in the absence of regulatory mechanisms such as the right of pre-emption, have been identified as an obstacle to settlement (Maye et al. 2009). Conversely, in areas where land values are low, a different type of strategy can be observed. In Spain, surveys carried out in the Valencia region show that farmers nearing retirement who run small farms with low sales potential prefer to keep them as part of their estate for self-subsistence or leisure purposes. However, the aging of farm managers heralds short-term changes in land ownership structures (Moragues-Faus 2014). In Portugal, small-scale extensive silvopastoral farms are often taken over by multi-activity project owners with no farming background and looking for a rural lifestyle (Pinto-Correia et al. 2015). More generally, the lack of farm takeover prospects is a factor in disinvestment in the farm or simplification of farming systems (Inwood and Sharp 2012). Conversely, research carried out in Austria (Glauben et al. 2004) and Spain (Aldanondo Ochoa et al. 2007) has shown that larger farms are more likely to be taken over within a family framework.
Generally speaking, comparative research carried out in Europe on the profile of new project holders tends to show that they are more involved in agricultural diversification (of both production and activities), often through the search for new markets, particularly in the case of holders from non-farming backgrounds (Sutherland et al. 2015; Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch 2016). They are more concerned with the environmental and social performance of their farms, which echoes other survey results highlighting that organic farmers are proportionally more numerous among project bearers than in the population of incumbent farmers (Lobley et al. 2009).
1.2.1.1. “Societalization” and outsourcing of agricultural activity and land capital: an obstacle to the transition of agri-food systems?
Farming and land management can take place in either individual or corporate form. The latter is becoming more common than the former. Apart from family farms with personal liability, rural law provides for a number of different corporate forms: (1) farming companies, such as the SCEA5 , subject to the general provisions of the Civil Code (C. civ., Art. 1832 et seq.), the GAEC6 , subject to Articles L. 323-1 et seq. of the CRPM, and the EARL7 , subject to Articles L. 324-1 et seq. of the CRPM; (2) land management companies, such as the GFA8 , subject to Articles L. 322-1 et seq. of the CRPM.
These corporate forms respond to specific economic, fiscal and social motivations. Depending on the case, they are geared more towards the intra-family transfer of land capital (GAEC) or opening up to shareholdings outside the family sphere (GFA). Based on an analysis of the legal framework, environmental motivations cannot be directly linked to these structures. However, the GIEE9 may be mentioned, as its purpose is to promote environmentally friendly farming practices (Dissaux 2022). Although not formally a company, this structure resulting from the 2014 Law on the Future ensures the recognition of a legal entity “whose members collectively carry out a multi-year project to modify or consolidate their agricultural production systems or methods and their agronomic practices, aiming for performance that is at once economic, social and environmental” (CRPM, Art. L. 315-1, authors’ translation). Recognition by the Ministry of Agriculture brings certain benefits, such as increased subsidies. By 2021, 753 GIEEs had been recognized since the scheme came into force in 2015. They bring together more than 12,000 farms, with a wide range of situations in terms of collective size, location, production, partners and project themes.
However, the corporate phenomenon has taken on unprecedented proportions since the increase in the demographic crisis in agriculture and the acceleration in the number of farm managers retiring. In the absence of new farmers, takeovers by neighboring farms already in place have led to an increase in tenanted areas, a significant proportion of which are leased by legal entities (Levesque et al. 2011).
Land regulation tools have failed to prevent a concentration of farmland and may have been hijacked through corporate techniques (Assemblée Nationale 2018). An initial breakthrough was achieved in the Future Law for Agriculture, Food and Forestry of October 13, 2014, which gave SAFERs the option of exercising their right of pre-emption for the acquisition of all the shares in a company whose main purpose is agricultural property. This arrangement did not prevent an agricultural landowner wishing to sell their land from setting up an agricultural company and selling part of their shares to another financial company in order to obtain a more advantageous price. In such cases, SAFERs cannot intervene. The acquiring company can therefore buy back the majority of shares without the risk of the sale being pre-empted.
In 2016, the purchase of 1,700 hectares of cereal land in the Indre region by a Chinese company rekindled the need for reform10 . The proposed law on the fight against the encroachment of agricultural land and the development of biocontrol was intended to give SAFERs a preponderant role by enabling them to exercise the right of pre-emption in the event of partial transfers of shares in companies whose main purpose is land ownership. This possibility was moreover censured by the Constitutional Council, as disproportionately infringing the right of ownership and freedom of enterprise (French Constitutional Council no. 2017-748 DC of March 16, 2017).
As some legal experts have pointed out, this extension of the right of pre-emption is technically not an appropriate legal means of addressing the issue of land grabbing. They suggest strengthening the judge’s power to control fraudulent operations and a mechanism to monitor the activity carried out on the land (Bosse-Platière et al. 2017). This possibility had been proposed by the legislator in 2014 by subjecting direct or indirect shareholdings in agricultural companies to administrative authorization. However, the Constitutional Council censured these dispositions, deeming them equally prejudicial to property rights and entrepreneurial freedom (French Constitutional Council no. 2014-701 DC du October 9, 2014).
Law no. 2021-1756 of December 23, 2021, on emergency measures to regulate access to agricultural land through corporate structures, known as the Sempastous Law, introduces a new mechanism to improve the regulation of land transfers through company shares. The conditions for control by the SAFERs are set out in Articles L. 333-1 et seq. of the CRPM and maritime fishing regulations, which establish control thresholds. The decision to authorize or refuse is entrusted to the prefect, who may suspend the examination of a request in order to encourage applications from new installations as opposed to a concentration. The implementation of this system, whose complexity has been pointed out (Robbe 2023), will enable us to verify its effectiveness in terms of concentration and generational renewal.
On an empirical level, sociological studies have documented another dimension of company structures, namely the development of outsourcing practices through the provision of services. Indeed, the services provided by agricultural contractors, long confined to targeted services, are tending to change in nature to sometimes represent a complete outsourcing of the farmer’s activity, in contradiction with the provisions of the statute on tenant farming, which requires the leaseholder to actually operate the farm (Anzalone and Purseigle 2014; Purseigle et al. 2019). These practices are motivated by a variety of strategies (keeping the farm in the family patrimony in the absence of a buyer, circumventing the status of tenant farming and the control of structures). They represent a challenge for farm advisory services and for supporting changes in practices towards transition, in the event that the titled farmer turns out not to be the real farmer.
1.3. The multifunctionality of agricultural land in food systems
The transformation of agricultural activities in areas under urban influence (short circuits, diversification) and initiatives aimed at reconnecting town and country are resulting in greater consideration of agricultural land by fields such as urban planning law, which initially treated it as a lateral object. At the same time, agriculture finds itself at the heart of debates on more systemic approaches to territorial planning, combining land and food policies.
1.3.1. Agricultural diversification and land planning: from land preservation to urban food planning?
For a long time reduced to a policy on programming the urbanization of building plots (the main aim of which was to produce affordable housing by capturing agricultural land rent), urban planning was reoriented in the early 2000s, within the framework of the Solidarity and Urban Development law (known as the SRU11 law), towards a territorial project approach that offers scope for forward-looking thinking. This project-based approach is enshrined in the introduction of a programmatic component, the “sustainable development plan”, within urban planning documents. This includes an agricultural land strategy linked to environmental objectives, since the plan must define “the general orientations of development, equipment, urban planning and landscape policies, the protection of natural, agricultural and forest areas, and the preservation or restoration of ecological continuity” (see Articles L. 151-5 et seq. of the French Urban Planning Code, authors’ translation, resulting from Law no. 2000-1208 of December 13, 2000, on “solidarity and urban renewal”).
Urban planning and rural development policies pay particular attention to the protection of agricultural land. Urbanization and the development of infrastructures of general interest (road networks, installation of water, gas and electricity pipes, photovoltaic panels, etc.) result in the disappearance of agricultural land.
Since the law of July 9, 1999 (no. 99-574), rural development law has been enriched with tools for the specific protection of agricultural land, such as protected agricultural zones. The aim of these zones is to protect a given agricultural area from any change of use or land use that would permanently alter its agronomic, biological or economic potential (C. rur., Art. L. 112-2). However, their use has not curbed the problem of agricultural land consumption. In 2009, the programming law for the implementation of the Grenelle Environment Round Table (Law no. 2009-967), which sets qualitative and quantitative objectives for State action in the environmental field, incorporated the need to “preserve agricultural land, in particular by limiting its consumption and artificialization” (authors’ translation). With this in mind, the Grenelle 2 law of July 12, 2010 (Law no. 2010-788), and the agricultural modernization law of July 27, 2010 (Law no. 2010-788), have created new tools for developing rural land-use planning policies to prevent the reduction of agricultural land. In other words, the aim is to control changes in the use of rural areas, particularly agricultural land. As far as agricultural land use is concerned, town planning law is not intended to direct land use towards a particular agricultural activity. However, an empirical study carried out on a panel of recent inter-municipal local urban plans shows that, in practice, some inter-municipalities indirectly direct these uses through their regulations on agricultural buildings, by favoring greenhouses for market gardening, for example (Liu et al. 2023).
With a view to limiting the sprawl of agricultural land, the SRU law introduced stricter constraints for building projects in agricultural zones, shifting the requirement for justification from compatibility to necessity (Art. R. 151-23 of the French Urban Planning Code). In the 2000s, the “Council of State” case law interpreted this principle of necessity strictly, ruling that building permits for agritourism projects were illegal. In a reverse move aimed at restoring greater flexibility to the allocation of building rights, the legislator introduced derogatory sectors in agricultural zones (“sectors of limited size and capacity” (authors’ translation), in which construction is authorized on an exceptional basis. Art. L. 151-13 of the French Urban Planning Code, resulting from Law no. 2014-366 of March 24, 2014, for access to housing and renovated urbanism, known as the ALUR12 law).
In line with an approach aimed at conferring greater flexibility on the allocation of building rights in agricultural zones, the legislator is extending the scope of construction in agricultural zones by explicitly including diversification activities: “constructions and facilities required for the processing, packaging and marketing of agricultural products, where these activities constitute an extension of the act of production” (Art. L. 151-11 of the French Urban Planning Code, authors’ translation, resulting from Law no. 2018-1021 of November 23, 2018, on the evolution of housing, development and the digital economy, known as the ELAN13 law).
These contradictory developments reflect a tension between objectives to combat urban sprawl (which aim to limit the creation of housing through construction or changes of use in agricultural areas close to farm headquarters, including for farmers), on the one hand, and, on the other, the development of diversification projects linked to the re-territorialization of agriculture.
1.3.2. The new challenges of re-territorializing agriculture: the land dimensions of food policies
Today, agricultural land policies are being renewed as part of the development of local policies in favor of local food and the re-territorialization of agriculture. Indeed, these policies are eminently interlinked and should be considered together. For the time being, the proposed instruments are not very restrictive, even if there are legal tools that can be mobilized in the direction of an ambitious land policy favoring the relocalization of the French food system (Bosse-Platière 2021). These include initiatives by local authorities to take over land for agricultural projects, such as test areas for market gardening and short-cycle facilities.
In this respect, territorial food projects offer a framework conducive to “the consolidation of territorialized supply chains and the development of consumption of products from short circuits, in particular from organic production [by meeting] the objective of structuring the agricultural economy and implementing a territorial food system” (L. 111-2-2 CRPM, authors’ translation). Therefore, even if they take the form of incentive action programs (Bodiguel 2018), territorial food projects can be a programming space for agricultural land policies involving a wide spectrum of actors beyond the farming profession’s organizations alone: local authorities, the associative sector, downstream actors. They can support initiatives to design diversified agri-food projects that require innovations in urban planning regulations (on-farm processing, mobile farm buildings). They can also be a forum for discussion on the allocation of space for processing or distribution activities geared towards the re-territorialization of agriculture (supply platforms, vegetable shops, producers’ boutiques, etc.) (Liu et al. 2023). This incentive framework comes up against a more restrictive legal framework that limits actions to re-territorialize agriculture. For example, public procurement law can be seen as an obstacle to setting an express clause requiring public catering to be supplied by local circuits. Nevertheless, a number of communes have succeeded through legal arrangements (Darrot et al. 2019).
1.4. Conclusion and perspectives
Old land management tools are now being used again in agricultural policies. In this synthesis, we wanted to focus on the legal tools that can accompany transitions in agri-food systems. The dual approach we have proposed, based on law and sociology, is designed to foster both a conceptual and empirical understanding of legal instruments. As we have shown, their appropriation for the ecological and food transition is both the object of social innovation and the subject of strong dynamics. These dynamics relate to issues of coexistence between agricultural systems and spatial justice in terms of access to the resource of land, as illustrated by the phenomena of concentration and societalization, which call into question the scope of these transitions. On this last point, the reform of agricultural land law, which seemed “heretical” not so long ago, is now the subject of consensus in principle (Grimonprez 2018, 2023). More broadly, such a reform must take into account a wider range of issues than when the foundations of rural law were first laid. Sustainable management of water resources, adaptation to climate change, generational renewal and farm income are all parameters that need to be taken into account when developing rural land tenure rules.
1.5. References
Aldanondo Ochoa, A.M., Casanovas Oliva, V., Almansa Saez, C. (2007). Explaining farm succession: The impact of farm location and off-farm employment opportunities.
Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research
, 5(2), 214–225.
Anzalone, G. and Purseigle, F. (2014). Délégation d’activités et sous-traitance : au service de la transmission de l’exploitation ou d’un patrimoine ? In
L’agriculture en famille : travailler, réinventer, transmettre
, Pierre, G., Jean-Philippe, C., Sandrine, P., François, P., Sylvie, Z. (eds). EDP Science, Les Ulis.
Assemblée Nationale (2018). Rapport d’information déposé par la mission d’information commune sur le foncier agricole. Report, 5 December.
Barataud, F. and Hellec, F. (2015). L’outil foncier, une solution délicate pour protéger les captages d’eau potable.
Économie rurale
, 347(3), 3–20.
Barral, S. (2020). Conservation, finance, bureaucrats : managing time and space in the production of environmental intangibles.
Journal of Cultural Economy
, 1, 15. doi: 10.1080/ 17530350.2020.1846593.
Barral, S. and Pinaud, S. (2017). Accès à la terre et reproduction de la profession agricole. Influence des circuits d’échange sur la transformation des modes de production.
Revue Française de Socio-Economie
, 18(1), 77–99.
Barthe, L. and Eychenne, C. (2018). Les associations foncières pastorales : un dispositif de gouvernance concrète du foncier dans les territoires de montagne.
EchoGéo
, 43. doi: 10.4000/echogeo.15228.
Barthès, C., Bertrand, N., Borg, D. (2013). Les chartes dans la gouvernance foncière des espaces agricoles. In
Terres agricoles périurbaines. Une gouvernance foncière en construction
, Bertrand, N. (ed.). Éditions Quæ, Versailles.
Baysse-Lainé, A. (2020). Une géographie relationnelle de l’accès au foncier agricole en France.
L’Espace géographique
, 49(3), 193–212.
Baysse-Lainé, A. (2022). Vers un accès au foncier plus inclusif pour les néo-agriculteurs ? Informations, réseaux et autochtonie.
Espaces et sociétés
, 186–187(3–4), 191–210.
Bertrand, N. and Duvillard, S. (2016). Intégration des enjeux environnementaux dans la gestion du foncier agricole : introduction.
Sciences Eaux Territoires
, 19(2), 2–5.
Bertrand, N. and Melot, R. (2016). Terres agricoles au Nord et au Sud. Quelles transformations pour l’action publique ? Introduction.
Économie rurale
, 353–354, 3–8.
Bignebat, C., Melot, R., Moustier, P., Raynaud, E., Soullier, G. (2022). Purchasing land for agricultural projects in France’s Île-de-France region. In
Sustainable Food Systems for Food Security: Need for Combination of Local and Global Approaches
, Thomas, A., Alpha, A., Barczak, A., Zakhia-Rozis, N. (eds). Éditions Quæ, Versailles.
Bodiguel, L. (2011). Les clauses environnementales dans le statut du fermage.
Environnement et développement durable
, 8–9(10), 13–19.
Bodiguel, L. (2018). Le développement des projets alimentaires territoriaux en France : quel droit pour quelle relocalisation de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation ? In
XVe congrès mondial de l’Union Mondiale des Agraristes Universitaires, Les évolutions actuelles du droit rural et agroalimentaire : entre globalisation, régionalisation et relocalisation
. UAM, 409–415.
Boinon, J.-P. (2011). Les politiques foncières agricoles en France depuis 1945.
Économie et Statistique
, 444(1), 19–37. doi: 10.3406/estat.2011.9641.
Bonnefond, M. and Fournier, M. (2013). Maîtrise foncière dans les espaces ruraux. Un défi pour les projets de renaturation des cours d’eau.
Économie rurale
, 334(2), 55–68.
Bosse-Platière, H. (2021). Imaginer une politique foncière de relocalisation du système alimentaire ou l’éloge du flexitarisme juridique. In
La relocalisation des systèmes alimentaires : un défi pour le droit
, Aubin-Brouté, R.-J. and Grimonprez, B. (eds). Presses universitaires juridiques de Poitiers, Poitiers, 45–62.
Bosse-Platière, H. and Lucas, A. (2020). L’obligation réelle environnementale et le statut du fermage : le mariage de la carpe et du lapin.
Cahier du CRIDON de Lyon
, 31.
