Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilRubriquesEnvironnement, Nature, Paysage2025Land exchange, a lever for the ag...

2025
1091

Land exchange, a lever for the agroecological transition of livestock farming?

Timothée Fouqueray, Alexandra Langlais et Thomas Houet
Cet article est une traduction de :
Les échanges fonciers agricoles, levier pour la transition agroécologique de l’élevage ?

Résumé

Agriculture both contributes to and suffers from climate disruptions and biodiversity loss. To address these challenges, agricultural practices are evolving, particularly through the agroecological transition, which integrates agronomic and ecological knowledge. However, the land-use dimension – specifically parcel distribution – remains underexplored in research, despite its crucial role in this transition. This article examines the benefits and limitations of farmland exchanges in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preserving biodiversity-friendly habitats, and improving farmers' working conditions. It is based on an analysis of dairy farming in the Zone Atelier Armorique, drawing on interviews with (para-)public agencies responsible for agricultural land management in Ille-et-Vilaine. Combining insights from ecology, geography, and law, the study first highlights how land exchanges support farmers, enhance carbon storage, and benefit species dependent on agricultural landscapes. It then evaluates the various farmland exchange mechanisms available to farmers, assessing their implications for both agricultural livelihoods and environmental sustainability. Finally, the article explores the efficiency, effectiveness, and alignment of land exchanges with territorial agri-environmental policies, positioning them within a systemic, long-term vision of the agroecological transition. The conclusion underscores the need to mobilize multiple land law instruments—including land reserves – and to allocate dedicated funding within agroecological transition budgets. This would support the long-term facilitation of land exchanges by agricultural and environmental organizations.
Keywords: agriculture, land politics, sustainability, grazing, spatial practices

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

This article is the English version of “Les échanges fonciers agricoles, levier pour la transition agroécologique de l’élevage ?”,(published in May 2025 in Cybergeo) translated with the partial use of a Large Language Model (ChatGPT, GPT-4o). The authors would like to thank the editorial team and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This project received financial support from the CNRS Foundation and SLAM- B project of the PEPR FairCarboN.

Texte intégral

Introduction

Spatial organisation of agricultural land is key for a sustainable agriculture

1The management of agro-ecosystems both contributes to and is affected by climate change and biodiversity loss (Pörtner et al., 2021). In France, agricultural activities incur annual losses amounting to several billion euros due to the direct impacts of climate change (Tremblay & Rui, 2022). At the same time, the use of crop protection products has significantly contributed to the decline of bird populations and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates (Leenhardt et al., 2022; Rigal et al., 2023). Additionally, the agricultural sector accounted for approximately 19% of French greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2022 (Citepa, 2024), while sales of major herbicides have continued to rise slightly (INSERM, 2021).

2In response to global change, the agroecological transition (AET) is increasingly promoted as a pathway toward more sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. AET combines insights from agronomy and ecology, emphasizing biodiversity at multiple scales, the reduction of synthetic inputs, the “One Health” approach (Estoque, 2023), and landscape-based strategies (Wezel et al., 2020). It requires substantial human, technical, and financial investment—for example, in reducing mechanical soil disturbance or promoting biological pest control (Perrot et al., 2023). However, visions of the actors to be prioritized in the transition remain highly contrasted. Governmental strategies often favor high-tech solutions (robotics, digital tools, genetics) (MESR, 2021), while unions and civil society organizations advocate for a farmer-centered approach (Arnauld de Sartre et al., 2020), arguing that technical fixes alone are insufficient (Fouqueray & Frascaria-Lacoste, 2020; Wezel et al., 2020).

3This study focuses on a structural, non-technical lever for AET: the spatial context of farming practices. Farm management is inherently shaped by spatial constraints such as field size and shape, parcel proximity, access routes, and especially distance from the farmstead (Marie et al., 2009; Puech & Mignolet, 2022). For instance, labor-intensive crops such as vegetables are typically grown near farm buildings. Farmland is thus inseparable from the spatial, patrimonial (often familial), and productive dimensions of farms, as well as from the broader territorial trajectories in which they are embedded (e.g., Abrantes et al., 2010).

4To date, research on land tenure and AET has largely adopted a top-down legal perspective, focusing on hypothetical property reforms (Aubin-Brouté et al., 2018; Grimonprez, 2017; Vanuxem, 2022), or, in geography, on the political agenda-setting of land-agroecology linkages and the regulation of land markets (Baysse-Lainé, 2024; Léger-Bosch et al., 2020; Wittman & James, 2022). While these legal and geographical approaches are essential, they would benefit from being complemented by analyses grounded in the actual functioning of agriculture, as proposed here.

5We examine the hypothesis that informal land exchanges between farmers represent a relevant yet underutilized lever for advancing AET. In France, national strategies and policy documents on agroecology make no mention of land as a tool for transition (MAA, 2021; MESR, 2021), and recent laws or reports on land issues rarely reference AET (Cour des Comptes, 2023; Perrot, 2021). Our analysis draws on research conducted in the living lab “Zone Atelier Armorique” (hereafter ZAAr) in Ille-et-Vilaine, France, where dairy farming (responsible for about 60% of agricultural GHG emissions in France; Citepa, 2024) offers a relevant case study. Pastureland tends to be located near milking facilities, leading to polycentric farm structures. However, decades of farm expansion have fragmented land holdings and reduced pasture areas (Preux, 2019). Land exchanges can help recentralize parcels around the farmstead, increasing pasture availability and generating co-benefits for water resources, ecosystem services, and biodiversity (Houet et al., 2022).

Diversity and specificities of land swaps legal measures

6A semantic clarification is necessary here: land exchanges refer both to the transfer of usus and fructus rights (i.e., usage and benefit of a plot) and to the transfer of full ownership. The former involves what are commonly called "tenant exchanges" or "use-based exchanges." The latter includes "amicable exchanges" within the legal framework of rural land exchange and transfer (ECIR, French for “Échanges et Cessions d’Immeubles Ruraux”), or Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Land Development (AFAFE, French for “Aménagement Foncier Agricole, Forestier et Environnemental”)—a procedure stemming from former land consolidation schemes. While AFAFE involves property exchanges, it also includes infrastructure works (roads, drainage, landscaping, etc.). Frequently criticized for their environmental impacts, such as hedge removal, these land consolidations have long been justified by their role in facilitating agricultural mechanization (Janečková Molnárová et al., 2023). This distinction is important, as the land tenure lever is often associated with the traumatic history of the 1960 and 1962 agricultural orientation laws (Marochini, 1999). Paradoxically, however, many farmers today actively engage in land exchanges—primarily to reduce tractor travel distances and lower time and fuel costs (Pauchard et al., 2016; Vries & Timo, 2022).

7This article adopts an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing on ecology, law, and geography. It is structured around three research sub-questions: (i) What are the strengths and limitations of land exchanges for sustainable agricultural practices, particularly in livestock farming? (ii) To what extent do agri-environmental objectives feature in the legal frameworks for land exchange, and how are they implemented on the ground? (iii) How can land exchanges be mobilized in support of both farmers and territorial agri-environmental policy goals?

1. An interdisciplinary methodology applied to dairy farming

  • 1 France is divided into 101 “départements”, administrative areas resembling counties.

8We selected Ille-et-Vilaine as our case study. As France’s leading dairy-producing department1, it has seen numerous land exchanges of various legal forms over the past 20 years. The ZAAr is particularly well suited to this study, as researchers from both the natural and social sciences have been studying interactions between agricultural activities, landscapes, and the environment there since 1993 (Baudry et al., 2017). Spanning approximately 130 km², the ZAAr features a diverse range of bocage landscapes and dairy farming systems (both conventional and organic), making it representative of Brittany’s agricultural environments and the challenges of AET.

9To address our three research sub-questions, we synthesized information and insights drawn from: (i) a literature review of academic and expert work in geography, agronomy, and ecology; (ii) legal texts on agricultural land exchanges; and (iii) telephone interviews.

1.1. Literature review on land swaps

10Preliminary data helped shape our research questions and analytical framework. Some of these stemmed from earlier studies (Marie et al., 2009; Marochini, 1999) and informal discussions with farmers, the Brittany Chamber of Agriculture (consultative, representative and professional body representing agricultural interests in different public bodies), and land management services. Others were derived from legal documents on agricultural land exchanges (notably compiled by the Cour des Comptes, 2023), recent geographic studies (Pauchard et al., 2016; Preux, 2019), and collective expert assessments (Terre de Liens et al., 2022).

11We expanded our initial corpus using a heuristic three-step bibliographic search. First, we conducted a search on Google Scholar using English keywords such as: land AND grouping OR regrouping OR consolidation; reparcelling; and French counterparts such as: remembrement; échange AND parcellaire; AFAF; AFAFE; ECIR; aménagement AND foncier OR parcellaire. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of the top 100 results for each query, retaining all documents relevant to agricultural land exchanges—regardless of year for studies in France; since 1962 (start of the Common Agricultural Policy) for studies in Europe; and since 2014 for international work on environmental impacts, in order to include the most recent contributions from the natural sciences.

12Second, we analyzed the 31 articles, 4 dissertations, 2 books, and 2 scientific reports thus identified, using an analytical framework focused on the opportunities and risks of land exchanges for AET, their legal implementation, and their systemic implications.

13Third, we assessed the representativeness of our literature review. Five articles deemed central to our research question were examined using Litmaps2, a tool that produces citation-timeline diagrams and identifies the most-cited references both within and across bibliographies. This allowed us to add three more articles to the corpus, though they did not significantly modify our previous analysis.

1.2. Additional inquiries

  • 3 SAFER stands for “Société d’Aménagement Foncier et d’Établissement Rural.” In France, SAFER are rur (...)

14To complement this material, we conducted ten open-ended telephone interviews between June 2023 and February 2024 with personnel from the Brittany region, Ille-et-Vilaine department, regional water management bodies, the Terre de Liens association (a civic organisation aiming at agricultural land preservation and leveraging access to farmland for organic and peasant farmers), and the Chamber of Agriculture. Only SAFER3 Bretagne declined to participate. The limited number of local institutions involved in land exchanges quickly led to interview saturation, with little new information arising from later conversations. For confidentiality and anonymity reasons, we only cite interviewees by name or institution with their explicit consent.

15An additional interview was conducted in November 2024 with a collective of twelve dairy and beef cattle farmers from a commune in northern ZAAr.

16All data were interpreted through the lens of our in-depth field knowledge. In particular, two of the authors have over a decade of experience working with farmers in the ZAAr, and addressed land tenure issues during participatory workshops held in 2018.

2. A sustainability perspective on agricultural land swaps

17Land swaps have traditionally been justified primarily on economic grounds. Few social arguments are invoked to support them, aside from mitigating farmland abandonment in reorganized areas and, occasionally, improving social interactions between neighboring farmers (Vries, Timo, 2022; Elvestad & Sky, 2019). A more comprehensive and systemic assessment of land swaps is still lacking—one that incorporates not only economic dimensions (e.g., transport efficiency), but also social and environmental impacts, such as grassland preservation and improved farming practices.

2.1. Land swaps reduce agricultural transportation time

18Land swaps help consolidate farmland, thereby reducing plot fragmentation, which in turn lowers transport time and fuel consumption (Figure 1A). Operating farm machinery represents a significant cost for farmers. In French arable systems, closer plot arrangements can reduce energy costs by up to 43% (Latruffe et al., 2014). The same applies to livestock farming in Brittany, where maize silage—a key fodder for pigs and cattle—requires frequent and voluminous transport. Estimates suggest that moving a maize field within 5 km of the farmstead can reduce fuel consumption by up to 29%, saving more than €900 annually in off-road diesel (Chambres d'Agriculture de Bretagne, 2022). Similar efficiencies have been observed elsewhere in Europe (Elvestad & Sky, 2019).

19This reduction in transport distances also decreases CO₂ emissions. However, a complete climate mitigation assessment must include other GHGs such as nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄), whose warming potentials are 300 and 80 times greater than CO₂, respectively (INRA, 2013). These gases represent 18% (CO₂-equivalent) of France’s agricultural GHG emissions (Project Drawdown, 2020). While land swaps do not directly target these emissions, they can facilitate the adoption of more sustainable practices that contribute to their reduction (see sections 2.2. and 2.3.).

2.2. Grassland conservation in dairy farming systems

  • 4 For Brittany, the standards are set out in the prefectoral decree "establishing the regional refere (...)

20Telephone interviews indicate that land swaps can support grassland maintenance in livestock agroecosystems (Figure 1B), particularly by enabling cows to graze closer to milking facilities. Nonetheless, farmers’ decisions vary: some retain maize cultivation on newly acquired nearby plots to ensure forage self-sufficiency, while others convert these plots into grassland to improve resilience to drought (which negatively affects maize) and to meet regulatory standards regarding nitrate runoff from grazing. During a collective workshop, farmers reported that larger pastures help dilute nitrate excretions from grazing herds, facilitating compliance with Common Agricultural Policy requirements4. Grass feeding is also economically beneficial and provides high-quality nutrition for dairy cows (Schils et al., 2022). Moreover, it supports climate mitigation: grazing improves the protein balance of rations compared to silage maize or soybean meal, reducing nitrogen excretion in manure (INRA, 2013). Excess nitrogen in manure can, indeed, increase N₂O emissions and leaching. Permanent grasslands also serve as carbon sinks, sequestering up to 85 tons of carbon per hectare (tC/ha) in French soils—comparable to forest soils and 30 tC/ha more than arable soils (Pellerin et al., 2021).

21Grassland conservation also benefits biodiversity (Habel et al., 2013). Studies show that maintaining grassland contributes to agricultural biodiversity at least as effectively as reducing pesticide use (INRA, 2008; Lecoq et al., 2022; Perrot et al., 2023). Grassland preservation aligns with broader efforts to conserve these declining habitats across Europe (Habel et al., 2013) and complements hedgerow protection and restoration when their removal is prohibited (Lotfi et al., 2010). Grasslands enhance agroecosystem resilience by reducing erosion (Alignier et al., 2020; Janečková Molnárová et al., 2023) and support natural pest control by promoting beneficial insects (Le Gal et al., 2020), thereby providing both environmental and economic benefits.

Figure 1: Contribution of permanent land swaps to farm sustainability.

Figure 1: Contribution of permanent land swaps to farm sustainability.

Column A: Reduction of agricultural transport. Column B: Facilitation of grassland maintenance. Prior to the land swap, the pink farm operated three plots for direct grazing and one distant plot for silage maize. The yellow farm cultivated silage maize on its own remote plot. After the swap, and when conditions allow (e.g., water access, fencing possibilities), the newly acquired plots are more compatible with the constraints of direct grazing.

Sources: CNRS-Images photograph (2012) Fouqueray, 2024.

2.3. Land swaps, a key for more sustainable farming practices

22Land swaps can improve crop management in terms of pest and weed control, water quality, and climate change mitigation. Having a plot close to the farm makes it easier to monitor weeds and pests and avoids the use of “precautionary overdoses” of pesticides and herbicides, which are costly both economically and environmentally (Chèze et al., 2020).

23Temporary land swaps also promote longer and more diversified crop rotations (Dongmo Zangue et al., 2022), which help dilute pest risks. For instance, a livestock farmer harvesting hay on an arable farmer’s plot benefits from the residual fertilisation of the previous year’s potato crop (Figure 2). Conversely, the arable farmer managing a former temporary grassland from the livestock system reduces herbicide use thanks to the ecological dynamics of grasslands, which naturally suppress weeds. In the ZAAr, such exchanges are sometimes proposed by vegetable growers from the Mont-Saint-Michel polders to dairy farmers in the surrounding hinterland.

24Regarding fertilisation practices on distant plots, the use of organic manure requires the transport of large volumes of biomass, which is time- and fuel-intensive. On nearby plots, however, manure and slurry can substitute for synthetic fertilisers—one of the main sources of agricultural N₂O emissions (INRA, 2013). Land swaps also increase the proportion of grasslands in spreading plans (as required to comply with nitrogen discharge regulations into watercourses, see section 2.2), and grasslands are more effective than arable crops at retaining nitrogen. This reduces N₂O emissions and improves groundwater quality (Beillouin et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2021).

Figure 2. Temporary land swaps as a way to optimise crop management.

Figure 2. Temporary land swaps as a way to optimise crop management.

Top row: the pink and yellow farms respectively follow potato/wheat/beet/wheat and maize/grass/wheat/barley rotations on four plots each. Bottom row: the same rotations are applied across five plots thanks to a temporary land swap.

Sources: CNRS-Images photograph (2012), figure by Timothée Fouqueray (2024).

25In addition to the potential benefits of land swaps for farmers and the AET, it is also important to examine whether and how environmental considerations are incorporated into the legal arrangements for these swaps.

3. Plurality of land swap arrangements

26This section presents the legal mechanisms governing land swaps through ownership, leasing, or use rights. Who makes use of them? What are their advantages and limitations? And how can they support the adoption or continuation of sustainable agricultural practices?

3.1 Land Swaps through Ownership Transfer

  • 5 Article L123-15 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.
  • 6 Where it is impossible for all owners within the AFAFE perimeter to receive the same areas of equiv (...)
  • 7 Article L123-15 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

27Land swaps may first involve the transfer of land ownership titles. The “Agricultural and Forestry Land Consolidation Scheme” (Aménagement Foncier Agricole et Forestier – AFAF), rebranded in 2016 as the “Environmental Agricultural and Forestry Land Consolidation Scheme” (AFAFE), is the most well-known legal tool for exchanging agricultural land. AFAFE stems from a former land reallocation procedures and aims to consolidate farm landholdings—improving working conditions and farmers' economic performance—and increasingly to promote “land use for natural, agricultural, or forestry purposes with a view to environmental protection”5 (Table 1). This dual objective is reflected in Ille-et-Vilaine, where 50 municipalities have been involved in eight AFAF(E) schemes since 2005 (source: phone interviews). Five of these took place as part of compensatory measures linked to highway and high-speed rail construction projects (Paris–Rennes line); one had an explicitly agricultural goal; and two AFAFE initiatives still underway aim to improve drinking water quality. So far, 876 farms have been affected by these schemes, which have reduced the number of agricultural plots by 61%. Implementing an AFAFE involves an accredited land surveyor appointed by the department, along with a municipal land management commission (CCAF, French for “Commission Commmunale d’Aménagement Foncier”) composed of local elected officials, landowners, forestry and agricultural operators, and individuals qualified in nature conservation (see Table 1). Inhabitants and landowners are regularly consulted, at minimum through two public inquiries (Terre de Liens et al., 2022). Such consultation is essential to avoid neighbour disputes and legal complaints (Haldrup, 2015). The procedure unfolds in three phases. It begins with defining the project perimeter and conducting land use and environmental assessments. Each parcel within the AFAFE perimeter is assigned a point value based on surface area and agronomic criteria such as soil quality, orientation, and drainage. This valuation underpins the next phase of land exchanges, in which the CCAF, through a notary, allocates replacement land of equivalent area and quality to each landowner. In some cases, the department may provide a monetary compensation6, for example when an organic farmer cannot be granted parcels of comparable ecological value7. AFAFE’s main benefit for the AET lies in its third phase, known as associated works. These may include firebreak forest tracks, stream restoration, or the creation of hiking trails. In this environmental component, public authorities may reclaim up to 2% of the exchanged land (or 5% in AFAFE linked to linear infrastructure projects) for environmental, landscape, or natural risk mitigation purposes. In Ille-et-Vilaine, 235 km of hedgerows have been replanted as part of recent AFAFE projects (Infrastructure Land Service, 2017, p. 35). However, several obstacles limit the use of AFAFE for agronomic and environmental purposes. One interviewee expressed concern that the associated environmental works may be rejected because they result from a process some consider undemocratic. Moreover, an AFAFE lasts between three and eight years from the first CCAF meeting to the completion of the associated works (Infrastructure Land Service, 2017, p. 35). These schemes are also costly for public authorities. In Ille-et-Vilaine, the department covers all cadastral procedure expenses (Infrastructure Land Service, 2017, p. 35). The Brittany Region provides technical support via the Breizh Bocage network to ensure hedgerow conservation during AFAFE operations (source: phone interviews). These high costs explain why some departments are reluctant to adopt this tool for environmental ends. Yet, public financing of these procedures may serve as a strong incentive for landowners to engage in land swaps (Haldrup, 2015).

  • 8 Articles L124-1 to L124-13 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

28Land swaps can also occur under the framework of “Exchanges and Transfers of Rural Property” (ECIR8). These can be initiated by landowners or farmers and do not involve associated works. Their contribution to AET thus remains at the farm scale. In the first scenario, applicants request the department’s Land Management Commission (CDAF) to define a perimeter for land consolidation. This grants exemption from registration fees and sometimes subsidies for surveying and notary costs—particularly when the exchange occurs in environmentally sensitive areas. This type of ECIR is similar to a voluntary AFAFE, but without the associated environmental works. In a second and more common scenario, ECIRs take place without a defined perimeter. These “mutual agreements” involve simple exchanges of land titles. They require only a notarised deed and are far quicker to implement than AFAFE or perimeter-based ECIRs. They are also geographically more flexible, provided the parcels lie within the same intermunicipal territory. If a tenancy agreement (“bail rural”) is attached to Parcel A, and A is exchanged for Parcel B, the lease is automatically transferred to Parcel B. The relative ease of these mutual agreements is further supported by increasing involvement from Chambers of Agriculture (Pauchard et al., 2016). In Ille-et-Vilaine, the Chamber has already facilitated many such exchanges, involving up to 20 parties or covering over 100 hectares (source: phone interviews).

Table 1: Comparison of legal arrangements for agricultural land swaps

Instrument

Nature of Exchange

Actors Involved

Main Benefits

Limitations

Environmental Considerations

Legal References (CRPMa)

AFAFE b (Environmental Agricultural and Forestry Land Consolidation)

Ownership

Municipal and departmental councils; CCAFc; certified land surveyor

Enhances economic sustainability of farms; social cohesion; ecological restoration (erosion/fire risk mitigation, ecological connectivity); public participation through consultations

Coercive for landowners; high cost; long duration (min. 3 years); leaseholders consulted after landowners; legal appeals can delay process

Environmental impact now central (hedgerows, organic farming, conservation servitudes), though limited to project duration

L123-1 to L123-35

ECIRd with a defined land consolidation perimeter

Ownership

Municipal and departmental councils; CCAF; certified land surveyor

Enhances economic sustainability of farms; social cohesion; ecological restoration (erosion/fire risk mitigation, ecological connectivity); public participation through consultations

Regulated and controlled by the Departmental Land Management Commission

Environmental impacts depend on participants' priorities; potential for positive indirect effects

L123-1 to L124-13

ECIR without a defined perimeter (“mutual land exchange”)

Ownership

Municipal and departmental councils; CCAF; certified land surveyor

Eligible for subsidies (surveying, registration) near sensitive areas (e.g. water catchment)

No land improvement works possible; dominated by landowners (leaseholders have little say)

Farmers’ lease exchange

Ownership

Agricultural landowners

Quick, low-cost; voluntary; no spatial constraint; rural lease automatically transfers to new parcel

Requires unanimous agreement of all leaseholders and landowners

L411-1 to L418-5

Usufruct exchange (“exchange of use”)

Leasehold

Farmers and landowners

Quick, voluntary, low-cost

Lessee remains liable for co-user’s non-compliance; temporary

Environmental impacts (potentially positive) depend on participants' intent; unregistered exchange limits impact assessments

L411-39

a. French Rural and Maritime Fishery code (CRPM stands for “Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime”). b. AFAFE stands for “Aménagement Foncier Agricole, Forestier et Environnemental”. c. Commission Communale d'Aménagement Foncier (municipal land management commission). d. Exchanges and Transfers of Rural Real Estate (in French, ECIR stands for “Échanges et Cessions d’Immeubles Ruraux”).

3.2. Swapping land leases

  • 9 Article L411-39 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

29Another form of land exchange involves switching the parcels rented by farmers9. Given that, on average, nearly two-thirds of the area of a French farm is leased (Courleux & Fabre, 2013), tenant and usufruct exchanges are highly complementary to ownership exchanges. The fact that lease-based exchanges can be time-limited also makes them a valuable tool for temporary arrangements.

30Tenant-to-tenant exchanges allow leaseholders to swap their rental contracts without any constraints on plot size. However, this requires the consent of their respective landlords.

  • 10 These commissions (in French, “Commission départementale d'orientation Agricole” – CDOA) are consul (...)

31Even more flexible is the usufruct exchange, which concerns parcels already under lease by agricultural operators. In this case, landowners must be informed by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. A renewable temporary agreement governing land use may be established, expiring no later than the end date of the earliest lease. This agreement can include stipulations on farming practices (e.g., fertilisation methods, use conditions). Usufruct exchanges are not subject to oversight by the departmental structure orientation commission10, provided the size difference between the exchanged parcels does not exceed 3 hectares.

32The contribution of lease-based exchanges to the AET remains difficult to evaluate. They are scarcely documented in the scientific literature and are also overlooked by statistical services, as there is no obligation to declare them. The only established fact is that each farmer retains the rights and responsibilities associated with the parcel they originally operated. This applies in particular to compliance with any environmental clauses specified in the rural lease of the exchanged parcels.

3.3. Other land tenure instruments

33Other legal mechanisms can influence land exchange feasibility and relevance.

  • 11 Article L411-27 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.
  • 12 Articles L123-1 to L123-35 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

34For example, environmental provisions attached to a plot may influence farmers' willingness to engage in a lease exchange. Environmental rural leases (in French, “Baux Ruraux Environnementaux”, BRE) often include clauses such as a ban on ploughing permanent grasslands or the maintenance of hedgerows11. In ownership exchanges, leases are tied to the plot, meaning that the new owner must either maintain the lease or relinquish it12. In a recent AFAFE project in Ille-et-Vilaine, the department considered acquiring wetland parcels to lease them under BREs with mandatory grazing conditions (source: phone interviews). Another relevant tool is the real environmental obligation (in French, “Obligation Réelle Environnementale”, ORE)—a long-term contract (several decades) aimed at conserving or restoring ecological features (e.g., stream rewilding, vegetated buffer strips). OREs are attached not to landowners or users, but to the parcel itself. Consequently, in an AFAFE, such obligations remain enforceable regardless of changes in ownership, and the AFAFE process may also serve as a trigger for setting up new OREs.

  • 13 Article L141-1 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

35Land portage is yet another mechanism used to facilitate land exchanges (Terre de Liens, 2024). It decouples the sale and acquisition of farmland, which would normally be simultaneous in an exchange. A temporary landholder, often the SAFER (a public body created in 1960), holds and manages the land—often through short-term leases—until a buyer is found. SAFERs have pre-emption rights and aim to protect non-urbanized rural spaces, biodiversity, and landscape diversity, while ensuring transparency and sustainability in the land market13. Where no successor has been identified, land portage can help build a land reserve, allowing for progressive land acquisition from willing sellers. Such reserves may later facilitate land exchanges when strict equivalences between plots are hard to achieve. The Brittany Region and the Ille-et-Vilaine Department have both developed land reserve policies to support exchanges (sources: interviews; Clément, 2021; Department d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 2024). The regional aid covers loan interest for 2–4 years (budget: €100,000/year), enabling 300 ha of reserves and 32 new farming projects since 2016. The departmental scheme can be combined, covering up to €15,000 in complementary costs (e.g., surveyor fees) over two years. These aids may be conditional on adopting diversified or low-input agricultural practices, thereby supporting TAE.

36The multiplicity of land exchange tools illustrates the legislator's effort to address the diversity of farming situations. Yet despite successive agricultural framework laws, a coherent toolkit fully adapted to the challenges of AET remains lacking.

4. Towards a systemic approach to land exchanges for the agro-ecological transition

37The implementation and monitoring of land exchanges must still demonstrate their effective contribution to AET. Moreover, despite the diversity of legal instruments for land exchanges, few integrate the territorial dimension of AET. Therefore, we propose an analysis of these instruments that examines their efficiency, effectiveness, and relationship with agri-environmental policies. Efficiency refers to the degree to which a legal instrument is actually implemented, whereas effectiveness relates to the extent to which it accounts for the complexity of the targeted problem and proposes appropriate solutions (Mincke, 1998).

4.1. Efficiency of land exchanges for agroecological transition

38To assess the efficiency of land exchanges for AET, it is necessary to revisit their criteria for success from the perspectives of both farmers and society.

39The success of AFAFE depends on achieving environmental outcomes as specified by prefectural directives and recommendations. This is illustrated by two case studies in Ille-et-Vilaine: two AFAFE operations initiated in 2019 aimed to improve drinking water quality (Département d’Ille-et-Vilaine, Eau du Pays de Saint-Malo, 2021). In these cases, a certified land surveyor identified areas of high hydric importance and, for instance, recommended the removal of drains in wetland zones. In parallel, a consulting firm set environmental targets for the associated works—such as restoring approximately fifty hectares of degraded wetlands (with over half in permanent grassland), achieving good ecological status for at least 5% of watercourses, and preserving at least 98% of hedgerows critical to erosion control.

  • 14 For instance, the reduction in GHGs may be the result of an increase in tails or technical developm (...)

40By contrast, amicable and usufruct exchanges do not predefine expected outcomes. Evaluating their benefits for livestock farmers is more challenging, as many relevant indicators exist (e.g., reduced fertiliser or fuel costs; Latruffe & Piet, 2014). These metrics are not neutral, depending on whether public subsidies or factors such as training and experience are taken into account. Consequently, assessing the contribution of land exchanges to AET necessitates dialogue with farmers regarding the very success criteria of these exchanges (Vries & Timo, 2022). Moreover, simulated models of these metrics must incorporate the multiple explanatory variables raised in these debates to isolate the effect of land exchanges per se14.

  • 15 Law no. 2005-157 of 23 February 2005 on the development of rural areas.
  • 16 Article "À l’ombre des Safer, la guerre des champs", authored by Julie Lallouët-Geffroy for Splann! (...)

41For any instrument, the lack of data hampers the analysis of its efficiency for AET. Whereas AFAFE operations were once under State control, since 2005 they have been managed at the departmental level15, dispersing the data and relying on the discretion of local services (Peignot et al., 2023). The same applies to amicable and usufruct exchanges: the absence of mandatory administrative tracking from notaries, owing to professional secrecy, deprives regional and departmental authorities of feedback on the efficiency of these instruments. Furthermore, monitoring the efficiency of different land exchange mechanisms is insufficiently resourced (de Montgolfier, 2018), not to mention the lack of political support16. In several interviews, our respondents noted, for example, that there are no consequences for landowners or farmers who remove ecologically valuable hedgerows. The lack of human resources to verify compliance with such removals—and more generally to process requests for land acquisitions and lease transfers—is seen as a major barrier to AET (Guéringer, 2023).

4.2. Land swaps effectiveness in the face of the spatio-temporal challenge of agro-ecological transition

42For long-term effectiveness, land exchange instruments must better account for the spatial and temporal trajectories of the agricultural sector.

43The spatial dimension of land exchanges varies depending on the procedure. AFAFE and ECIR with defined perimeters are limited to at least part of a municipality, which can hinder parcel consolidation. For instance, a non-farming owner exchanging Parcel A for Parcel B may "transfer" their tenant to Parcel B—when the tenant might have preferred to continue using Parcel A. Thus, it may be pertinent to redefine the legal boundaries of the consolidation perimeter to preserve the territorial logic of the associated works, which would remain confined within it. Ownership exchanges, on the other hand, could potentially include all land within a farm, including parcels outside the defined perimeter—currently, only those within it are eligible for exchange. Alternatively, a combined approach using both AFAFE and amicable or usufruct exchanges (Peignot et al., 2023) could be mobilized. By working both within and outside the formal consolidation perimeter, collective initiatives might be facilitated at a lower cost than establishing a dedicated land reserve. However, our interviews indicate that such joint mobilisation of AFAFE with amicable or usufruct exchanges does not occur in Brittany, particularly because the departmental services managing AFAFE lack the capacity or mandate to conduct other types of exchanges.

  • 17 In French, “Centres d'initiatives pour valoriser l'agriculture et le milieu rural” (CIVAM).

44The effectiveness of land exchanges for AET also depends on their temporal dimension. The regulatory competencies of different procedures are limited to the moment of the exchange, with no subsequent monitoring of agricultural practices. To secure medium- and long-term environmental gains from AFAFE, the Ille-et-Vilaine Department and the water management union in the Pays de Saint-Malo have proposed accompanying farmers via a center for initiatives to enhance agriculture and rural areas17 (source: telephone interviews). Recent developments in energy-oriented agricultural production can also influence land exchanges. For example, installing an biogas plant can sometimes accelerate land exchange projects by streamlining digestate spreading (Anzalone & Mazaud, 2023). Paradoxically, the additional profits associated with biogas production may raise the resale value of parcels, potentially hindering subsequent exchanges.

45Ultimately, the effectiveness of land exchanges for AET is linked to the future evolution of the spatial framework of agricultural holdings. An increasing number of landowners now state that they are farmers, yet delegate the actual management of their parcels to agricultural service companies (Purseigle et al., 2019). This trend toward “firm agriculture” may diminish landowners' interest in engaging in land swaps.

46Monitoring the effectiveness of land exchanges for AET thus requires selecting appropriate spatial and temporal scales for both farmers and society (McPhee et al., 2021). This is precisely the value of long-term socio-ecological research observatories. The ZAAr facilitates the establishment of trust with local elected officials, residents, and farmers to co-construct or collect sustainability indicators that best reflect each ecological function—for example, pesticide treatment frequency, water conservation, pasture restoration, or the spatiotemporal diversity of cropping systems (CIVAM Installation-Transmission, 2023; Crecente et al., 2002; INRA, 2008).

4.3. Towards better integration of land exchanges in agri-environmental policies

  • 18 All the more with the increase in the number of farmers setting up up on farms with which they have (...)

47We argue that it is timely to better integrate land exchanges into agri-environmental policies. Indeed, over 40% of farmers will retire by 2033, and the resulting land vacancies are unlikely to be fully compensated by transfer schemes (Cour des Comptes, 2023). Agricultural lands not taken up for new operations will merge with existing farms, thereby increasing the total cultivated area. The remaining farmers will manage more parcels, many of which will not carry the heritage value associated with family-owned lands18. These expansion dynamics, which favor land exchanges (Pauchard et al., 2016), are already evident—particularly in Brittany, where farmers account for only 2% of the population yet manage 64% of the regional territory (Agreste, 2021). These figures support the need for a more equitable allocation of resources in AET, to which the land tenure lever can contribute (Baysse-Lainé & Perrin, 2021). We advocate for considering not only the efficiency and effectiveness of land exchanges but also their contributions to agri-environmental policies. For instance, land reserves might receive preferential funding in environmentally sensitive areas. An exchange that preserves pastureland within a region of intensive pig farming could contribute more to AET by enhancing ecological connectivity than exchanges in areas already protected (Terre de Liens et al., 2022).

48Conversely, agri-environmental policies and their zoning regimes could promote land exchanges. For example, perimeters for protecting peri-urban agricultural and natural spaces are legal instruments facilitating land acquisition by municipalities or inter-municipalities, enabling them to help build land reserves. Land exchanges could reinforce European and regional agri-environmental policies, which often rely on payments for ecosystem services. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy rewards sustainable practices by financing measures such as the preservation of grazed wetlands. However, these mechanisms tend to have effects limited to the payment period. Allocating a portion of agri-environmental subsidies to support land exchanges appears to be a promising avenue for preserving pastureland over the long term. This is, in fact, the approach being trialed by the Montargois-en-Gâtinais Territorial and Rural Balance Pole in Loiret through a territorial food project19 and a local climate–air–energy plan20 (Duval et al., 2021).

49Nevertheless, the lack of coherence among agricultural, climate, and biodiversity policies hinders the effective use of land exchanges for AET. In one interview, a frequent AFAFE user reported a contradiction in a hedgerow maintenance measure: although the proximity of field-edge trees is seen as a constraint by some farmers (due to shading or machinery access), local elected officials and citizens have supported a climate mitigation policy that would offer financial compensation to farmers. An attempt was made to market biomass from hedgerow maintenance as a source of wood energy to local facilities, but this initiative was ultimately abandoned because bocage biomass could not compete with forest biomass subsidized by other European environmental policies.

50Better integrating land exchanges and AET thus requires in-depth dialogue between the institutions responsible for various land tenure and agri-environmental policies. In Brittany, regional authorities, departments, and Chambers of Agriculture host numerous forums and appear to welcome enhanced communication, as evidenced by the forthcoming implementation of a regional mapping observatory for agricultural land and a network of local land cells for relaying needs and training elected officials.

Conclusion

51To confront global change and mitigate its environmental impacts, agriculture must adopt practices that are more sustainable and resilient. Agroecological transition calls for the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge from agronomy, ecology, geography, and law. In dairy farming, for example, this entails maintaining pastures that sequester carbon, provide essential habitats for grassland flora and fauna, contribute to water quality, and offer an economical means of feeding livestock. To reduce excessive travel distances for herds and gain time and economic savings, pastures must be located close to the dairy facility. Land exchanges facilitate this by allowing a farmer to swap an outlying parcel with one nearer the farmstead, even if they do not have exploitation rights on the latter.

52Although the legal diversity of land exchanges might suggest they are easily deployable for AET, only AFAFE has, since 2016, explicitly addressed environmental issues. While AFAFE can justify land exchanges and related sustainable development works, its bureaucratic complexity and slow pace drive farmers to prefer amicable or usufruct exchanges. Thus, AFAFE—the sole instrument designed at a territorial scale—is rarely used for AET. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for more efficient and effective land exchanges: for instance, the combined use of various legal tools, targeted funding for exchange facilitation within AET budgets, redefining the criteria for including parcels in AFAFE within rural and maritime codes, and improving the monitoring of exchanged surfaces.

53These preliminary findings open prospects for action research, proposing a forward-looking approach to participatory simulations with farmers. By integrating interdisciplinary perspectives and a landscape approach, participatory simulations can offer a systemic vision of the advantages and disadvantages—and even the success or failure—of land exchanges. One could, for example, envision scenarios where farmers prefer to spread climate risk through dispersed parcels, benefiting from varied edaphic responses during drought periods, thereby rendering land exchanges less attractive. Participatory simulations can also serve as a forum for collective learning and debate on the objectives and means of AET, particularly since many elected representatives lack a clear understanding of land exchange policies.

54In Brittany as elsewhere, it is crucial to reexamine the agricultural and environmental relevance of land exchanges. Although imperfect, they remain a tool to support agricultural practices among other methods, including awareness-raising, training initiatives, regulatory constraints, and eco-subsidies. Marked by widespread farmer retirements, rising non-road diesel prices, and the rollout of new land-related environmental policies (such as the net-zero artificialisation goal), the current context appears particularly favorable to their full mobilization.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abrantes P., Soulard C., Jarrige F., Laurens L., 2010, "Dynamiques urbaines et mutations des espaces agricoles en Languedoc-Roussillon (France)", Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography.

Agreste., 2021, La Bretagne perd un quart de ses exploitations en dix ans, mais conserve sa surface agricole. DRAAF Bretagne.

Alignier A., Uroy L., Aviron S., 2020, "The role of hedgerows in supporting biodiversity and other ecosystem services in intensively managed agricultural landscapes", in: Reconciling agricultural production with biodiversity conservation. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 28 p.

Anzalone G., Mazaud C., 2023, "Agriculture, territoire et industrie en interface. Le cas de la méthanisation", Regards croisés sur l’économie, Vol.33, N°2, 226‑233.

Arnauld de Sartre X., Charbonneau M., Charrier O., 2020, "Formes spatiales et logiques émergentes de la transition agroécologique"

Aubin-Brouté R.-J., Barbieri J.-J., Billet P., Bodiguel L., Bosse-Platière H., Bouchard V., et al., 2018, La réforme du droit foncier rural : demander l’impossible (B. Grimonprez, Éd.). 220 p.

Baudry J., Alignier A., Thomas Z., 2017, "Interdisciplinarité et représentation de la complexité des systèmes socio-écologiques : recherches sur la zone atelier Armorique", Natures Sciences Sociétés, Vol.Supplément, N°Supp4, 50‑54.

Baysse-Lainé A., 2024, "Moving toward a fairer access to land fostering agroecological transition? A decade of legal change and reframing of debates around soil and climate in France", Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, Vol.12, N°1, 00070.

Baysse-Lainé A., Perrin C., 2021, "Inégalités et rapports de domination dans la gestion du foncier agricole en France au prisme de la justice foncière et de la land justice", Justice spatiale-Spatial justice, N°16, 1‑29.

Beillouin D., Pelzer E., Baranger E., Carrouée B., Cernay C., de Chezelles E., et al., 2021, "Diversifying cropping sequence reduces nitrogen leaching risks", Field Crops Research, Vol.272, 108268.

Chambres d’Agriculture de Bretagne., 2022, "Augmentation du prix de l’énergie, pensez aux échanges parcellaires", Chambres d’agriculture de Bretagne.

Chèze B., David M., Martinet V., 2020, "Understanding farmers’ reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment", Ecological Economics, Vol.167, 106349.

Citepa., 2024, Rapport Secten – Emissions de gaz à effet de serre et de polluants atmosphériques 1990-2023. France.

CIVAM Installation-Transmission., 2023, Vers la quantification des impacts de la transmission des fermes sur le territoire de Roche-aux-Fées communauté (35). Ille-et-Vilaine.

Clément C., 2021, "100 000 €/an de la Région Bretagne pour des réserves foncières", Terre-net.

Cour des Comptes., 2023, La politique d’installation des nouveaux agriculteurs et de transmission des exploitations agricoles. France.

Courleux F., Fabre C., 2013, "La politique foncière agricole : atout ou contrainte pour la compétitivité de l’agriculture française ?", Pour, Vol.220, 175.

Crecente R., Alvarez C., Fra U., 2002, "Economic, social and environmental impact of land consolidation in Galicia", Land Use Policy, Vol.19, N°2, 135‑147.

Département d’Ille-et-Vilaine, Eau du Pays de Saint-Malo., 2021, "Convention de partenariat entre le Département d’Ille-et-Vilaine et Eau du Pays de Saint-Malo dans le cadre des opérations d’Aménagement Foncier, Agricole, Forestier et Environnemental (AFAFE) de Landal et de Mireloup",

Département Ille et Vilaine., 2024, "Mise en réserve foncière",

Dongmo Zangue Y., Melot R., Martin P., 2022, "Diversity of farmland management practices (FMP) and their nexus to environment: A review", Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.302, N°Part B, 114059.

Duval L., Panarin M., Martin I., 2021, "Réussir les projets agro-environnementaux et climatiques (PAEC) : bonnes pratiques et recommandations", Analyse du Centre d’études et de prospective.

Elvestad H. E., Sky P. K., 2019, "Effects of land consolidation", Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, Vol.14, N°1, 64‑78.

Estoque R. C., 2023, "Complexity and diversity of nexuses: A review of the nexus approach in the sustainability context", Science of The Total Environment, Vol.854, 158612.

Fouqueray T., Frascaria-Lacoste N., 2020, "Social sciences have so much more to bring to climate studies in forest research: a French case study", Annals of Forest Science, Vol.77, N°3, 81.

Grimonprez B., 2017, "Nouvelle utopie foncière: pour une autre régulation de la maîtrise du foncier", Revue de droit rural, N°452.

Guéringer A., 2023, "Applications différenciées d’une politique foncière agricole : une lecture comparée des SDREA", Économie rurale. Agricultures, alimentations, territoires, N°383, 19‑33.

Habel J. C., Dengler J., Janišová M., Török P., Wellstein C., Wiezik M., 2013, "European grassland ecosystems: threatened hotspots of biodiversity", Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol.22, N°10, 2131‑2138.

Haldrup N. O., 2015, "Agreement based land consolidation – In perspective of new modes of governance", Land Use Policy, Vol.46, 163‑177.

Hayes T., Murtinho F., Wolff H., López-Sandoval M. F., Salazar J., 2022, "Effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services after loss and uncertainty of compensation", Nature Sustainability, Vol.5, N°1, 81‑88.

Houet T., Palka G., Roberta R., Hugues B., Jacques B., Xavier P., et al., 2022, "European blue and green infrastructure network strategy vs. the common agricultural policy. Insights from an integrated case study (Couesnon, Brittany)", Land Use Policy, Vol.120, 106277.

INRA., 2008, Agriculture et biodiversité - Valoriser les synergies. France, INRA.

INRA., 2013, Quelle contribution de l’agriculture française à la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ? France, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.

INSERM., 2021, Pesticides et effets sur la santé : Nouvelles donnée. Montrouge, EDP Sciences.

Janečková Molnárová K., Sklenička P., Bohnet I. C., Lowther-Harris F., van den Brink A., Movahhed Moghaddam S., et al., 2023, "Impacts of land consolidation on land degradation: A systematic review", Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.329, 117026.

Latruffe L., Piet L., 2014, "Does land fragmentation affect farm performance? A case study from Brittany, France", Agricultural Systems, Vol.129, 68‑80.

Le Gal A., Robert C., Accatino F., Claessen D., Lecomte J., 2020, "Modelling the interactions between landscape structure and spatio-temporal dynamics of pest natural enemies: Implications for conservation biological control.", Ecological Modelling, Vol.420.

Lecoq L., Mony C., Saiz H., Marsot M., Ernoult A., 2022, "Investigating the effect of habitat amount and landscape heterogeneity on the gamma functional diversity of grassland and hedgerow plants", Journal of ecology, Vol.110, N°8, 1871‑1882.

Leenhardt S., Mamy L., Pesce S., Sanchez W., 2022, Impacts des produits phytopharmaceutiques sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques. INRAE-IFREMER.

Léger-Bosch C., Houdart M., Loudiyi S., Le Bel P.-M., 2020, "Changes in property-use relationships on French farmland: A social innovation perspective", Land Use Policy, Vol.94, 104545.

Liang H., Gao S., Qi Z., Hu K., Xu J., 2021, "Leaching loss of dissolved organic nitrogen from cropland ecosystems", Environmental Reviews, Vol.29, N°1, 23‑30.

Lotfi A., Javelle A., Baudry J., Burel F., 2010, "Interdisciplinary Analysis of Hedgerow Network Landscapes’ Sustainability", Landscape Research, Vol.35, N°4, 415‑426.

MAA., 2021, Plan d’action climat du ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation. Paris, France, Ministère de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation.

Marie M., Bensaid A., Delahaye D., 2009, "Le rôle de la distance dans l’organisation des pratiques et des paysages agricoles : l’exemple du fonctionnement des exploitations laitières dans l’arc atlantique", Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography.

Marochini E., 1999, Les remembrements en Moselle entre économie, environnement et société : essai de géographie rurale et appliquée. Metz, France, Université de Metz, 621 p.

McPhee C., Bancerz M., Mambrini-Doudet M., Chrétien F., Huyghe C., Gracia-Garza J., 2021, "The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs", Sustainability, Vol.13, N°4, 1718.

MESR., 2021, Programme d’investissements d’avenir 4 : Deux stratégies d’accélération au service de la 3e révolution agricole et de l’alimentation santé. France, Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche.

Mincke C., 1998, "Effets, effectivité, efficience et efficacité du droit : le pôle réaliste de la validité", Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, Vol.40, N°1, 115‑151.

de Montgolfier A., 2018, Les moyens des politiques publiques et les dispositions spéciales. Paris, France, Sénat.

Paprocki K., 2022, "Anticipatory ruination", The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.49, N°7, 1399‑1408.

Pauchard L., Madeline P., Marie M., 2016, "L’échange parcellaire : une nouvelle étape dans l’aménagement foncier de l’Ouest français", Norois. Environnement, aménagement, société, N°240, 7‑24.

Peignot B., Rivier M., Dutordoir J., 2023, L’aménagement foncier agricole, forestier et environnemental (AFAFE) : Le nouveau visage du remembrement. Editions France Agricole.

Pellerin S., Bamière L., Savini I., Réchauchère O. (Éd.)., 2021, Stocker du carbone dans les sols français - Quel potentiel et à quel coût ? France.

Perrot P., 2021, Sur la proposition de loi portant mesures d’urgence pour assurer la régulation de l’accès au foncier agricole au travers de structures sociétaires (n° 3853). Paris, France, Assemblée nationale.

Perrot T., Rusch A., Gaba S., Bretagnolle V., 2023, "Both long-term grasslands and crop diversity are needed to limit pest and weed infestations in agricultural landscapes", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.120, N°49, e2300861120.

Pörtner H. O., Scholes R. J., Agard J., Archer E., Arneth A., Bai X., et al., 2021, "IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change",

Preux T., 2019, De l’agrandissement des exploitations agricoles à la transformation des paysages de bocage : analyse comparative des recompositions foncières et paysagères en Normandie. Caen, Normandie.

Project Drawdown., 2020, "Managed Grazing", Project Drawdown.

Puech T., Mignolet C., 2022, "Caractériser la morphologie des parcelles agricoles à l’échelle de la France", Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography.

Purseigle F., Anzalone G., Nguyen G., Hervieu B., 2019, "Des entreprises agricoles “ aux allures de firme ”. Mutations des exploitations agricoles françaises et nouveaux modes d’accès au foncier",

Rigal S., Dakos V., Alonso H., Auniņš A., Benkő Z., Brotons L., et al., 2023, "Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.120, N°21, e2216573120.

Schils R. L. M., Bufe C., Rhymer C. M., Francksen R. M., Klaus V. H., Abdalla M., et al., 2022, "Permanent grasslands in Europe: Land use change and intensification decrease their multifunctionality", Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol.330, 107891.

Service Foncier des Infrastructures., 2017, "Présentation de l’Aménagement Foncier Agricole, Forestier et Environnemental (AFAFE)",

Terre de liens., 2024, Le portage foncier agricole - levier pour une agriculture en transition ? Terre de liens.

Terre de Liens, Lejeune S., Bourdais C., Pruvost N., 2022, Agir sur le foncier agricole. Terre de liens.

Tremblay D., Ruiz J., 2022, Evaluation du coût du changement climatique pour les filières agricoles et alimentaires. Paris, France, CGAAER.

Vanuxem S., 2022, La Propriété de la terre. France, Wildproject, 144 p.

Vries D., Timo W., 2022, "Social Aspects in Land Consolidation Processes", Land, Vol.11, N°3, 452.

Wezel A., Herren B. G., Kerr R. B., Barrios E., Gonçalves A. L. R., Sinclair F., 2020, "Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review", Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Vol.40, N°6, 40.

Wittman H., James D., 2022, "Land governance for agroecology", Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, Vol.10, N°1, 00100.

Haut de page

Notes

1 France is divided into 101 “départements”, administrative areas resembling counties.

2 https://www.litmaps.com

3 SAFER stands for “Société d’Aménagement Foncier et d’Établissement Rural.” In France, SAFER are rural development and land improvement public societies. Read below for further information

4 For Brittany, the standards are set out in the prefectoral decree "establishing the regional reference system for the implementation of balanced fertilisation" of 29 March 2023.

5 Article L123-15 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

6 Where it is impossible for all owners within the AFAFE perimeter to receive the same areas of equivalent quality, some may receive larger areas of land of lesser agricultural quality (or vice versa). At the end of the exchanges, each owner must have the same number of points as he had initially (to within 10%, which may also lead to the payment of a balance).

7 Article L123-15 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

8 Articles L124-1 to L124-13 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

9 Article L411-39 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

10 These commissions (in French, “Commission départementale d'orientation Agricole” – CDOA) are consulted in particular on the granting of authorisations to farm, which are necessary documents for anyone wishing to farm a leased plot of land.

11 Article L411-27 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

12 Articles L123-1 to L123-35 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

13 Article L141-1 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishery Code.

14 For instance, the reduction in GHGs may be the result of an increase in tails or technical developments in tractor engines.

15 Law no. 2005-157 of 23 February 2005 on the development of rural areas.

16 Article "À l’ombre des Safer, la guerre des champs", authored by Julie Lallouët-Geffroy for Splann! (ONG d’enquêtes journalistiques), published in 2023.

17 In French, “Centres d'initiatives pour valoriser l'agriculture et le milieu rural” (CIVAM).

18 All the more with the increase in the number of farmers setting up up on farms with which they have no family connection.

19 https://france-pat.fr/pat/pat-du-montargois-gatinais-2/

20 https://gatinaismontargois.com/missions/climat-air-%C3%A9nergie/#cot_transition

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Contribution of permanent land swaps to farm sustainability.
Légende Column A: Reduction of agricultural transport. Column B: Facilitation of grassland maintenance. Prior to the land swap, the pink farm operated three plots for direct grazing and one distant plot for silage maize. The yellow farm cultivated silage maize on its own remote plot. After the swap, and when conditions allow (e.g., water access, fencing possibilities), the newly acquired plots are more compatible with the constraints of direct grazing.
Crédits Sources: CNRS-Images photograph (2012) Fouqueray, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41984/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 456k
Titre Figure 2. Temporary land swaps as a way to optimise crop management.
Légende Top row: the pink and yellow farms respectively follow potato/wheat/beet/wheat and maize/grass/wheat/barley rotations on four plots each. Bottom row: the same rotations are applied across five plots thanks to a temporary land swap.
Crédits Sources: CNRS-Images photograph (2012), figure by Timothée Fouqueray (2024).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41984/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 318k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Timothée Fouqueray, Alexandra Langlais et Thomas Houet, « Land exchange, a lever for the agroecological transition of livestock farming? », Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography [En ligne], Environnement, Nature, Paysage, document 1091, mis en ligne le 21 juillet 2025, consulté le 12 mai 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/41984 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14ehu

Haut de page

Auteurs

Timothée Fouqueray

Chercheur postdoctoral, IODE – Institut de l’Ouest : Droit et Europe, UMR 6262 CNRS/Université de Rennes, Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique, Rennes, France, timothee.fouqueray@univ-rennes.fr

Alexandra Langlais

Directrice de recherche, IODE – Institut de l’Ouest : Droit et Europe, UMR 6262 CNRS/Université de Rennes, Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique, Rennes, France, alexandra.langlais@univ-rennes.fr

Thomas Houet

Directeur de recherche, LETG – Littoral, Géomatique, Environnement, Télédétection, UMR 6554 CNRS/Université de Rennes 2, Rennes, France, thomas.houet@univ-rennes2.fr

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search