In a context of increasing pressure on agricultural land, linked to urbanization, infrastructure development, and the establishment of economic activities, territories face a dual challenge: to support their development while sustainably preserving their agricultural, economic, and food potential. The issue of agricultural land consumption can no longer be approached solely from a land or regulatory perspective; it broadly questions the resilience of agricultural systems, food sovereignty, and the coherence of territorial trajectories.
In this context, collective agricultural compensation, part of the Avoid – Reduce – Compensate (ERC) sequence, can become a strategic tool for agricultural and territorial development, serving the collective interest.
So, what is the ERC sequence<, and how is it currently mobilized for projects impacting agricultural land?< It is from this common understanding that more ambitious compensation practices can emerge, better integrated into territorial strategies.
What is the ERC sequence?
In the context of planning or urban development procedures, project leaders must sometimes conduct several studies aimed at justifying that their project minimizes its impacts on the environment, biodiversity, or agricultural land. This assessment must include a state of play (environmental or agricultural), as well as an ERC sequence.
The sequence Avoid – Reduce – Compensate is thus a regulatory and methodological framework enshrined in the Environmental Code (notably in articles L. 110-1 and L. 163-1). It aims to ensure that development or construction projects minimize their negative impacts on the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (fauna, flora, landscape, water, etc.). It imposes a strict hierarchy of actions, with compensation being a last resort.
The 3 stages of the ERC sequence
- Avoid: eliminate negative impacts from the project's design by choosing different locations, routes, techniques, or timelines.
- Reduce: limit the extent (area...), duration, or intensity of impacts that could not be avoided, through technical or organizational measures.
- Compensate<: to offset residual impacts by restoring, creating, or managing natural or agricultural environments in a way that ensures ecological or agricultural equivalence to what is lost in the project. Note: compensation< should only be considered as a last resort.<
While the ecological compensation mechanism is now widely developed and has proven effective in environmental matters, agricultural compensation, particularly in its collective form, is much less deployed at present and could also be an interesting tool for preserving agricultural environments and aiding agro-ecological transition.
Combining land planning and habitat preservation through ecological and agricultural compensation mechanisms.
As part of a project conducted in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Vertigo Lab partnered with Oxao[1] to assist a community of municipalities with 104,000 inhabitants in conducting a study on ecological and agricultural compensation planning, ahead of the revision of its PLU-i (intercommunal local urban plan) – a document that sets the urban planning rules at the intercommunal level – and its SCoT (territorial coherence scheme) – a strategic document that defines the major planning and balance orientations of the territory.
Objective: to identify, among potential project areas (ZP), those to prioritize for management, those to preserve as a priority, and those likely to host agricultural compensation measures, all with reflection and governance conducted at the territorial level.
Identify the agricultural issues of the territory
The approach was based on:
- An identification of agricultural sectors to preserve or develop< in the territory through a literature review and interviews with local agricultural sector stakeholders.
- A spatial analysis of these sectors (mapping of the different OTEX)[2]) on the different project areas. This analysis then led to prioritizing potential zones (ZP) based on different criteria to qualify the importance of the concerned plots for the agricultural economy of the territory. We selected 9 main criteria per ZP:
- SAU concerned: total agricultural area (in ha) and by crop in the studied area.
- Relevant Otex : characterization of the Technical-Economic Orientation (Otex) of the plots.
- Sector: characterization of the sector issue: low (sector is not strategic for the territory, with no production, land, or heritage tensions), medium (sector present in the territory but facing no particular difficulties), high (sector present with strong stakes in preserving activity, or sector less present but with development potential).
- Organic area : percentage of the utilized agricultural area concerned in organic.
- PBS : standard gross production in € per ha.
- Transmission Challenge – Installation: characterization of the challenge regarding transmission installation: N.A = no particular challenge, Preservation installation challenge = ongoing transmission-installation, or farmer seeking to transmit, Land use challenge = farmer close to retirement without a successor.
- Access to water : presence of access to water allowing irrigation.
- Soil type <: soil typology of the site: colluviosol, rendosol, fluviosol, neoluvisol, fersialsol, reductisol, brunisol.
- Agronomic potential: partial assessment of the agronomic potential of the site, based on soil type: low = reductisol; medium = colluviosol, rendosol, fluviosol, fersialsol, brunisol; medium/high = neoluvisol.
Based on these different criteria, we have finally defined a rule for cross-analysis of these issues, in order to qualitatively assess each studied area (from low to high stakes).
Anticipating impacts and costs of development
Subsequently, the application of the ERC sequence< allowed for the determination of ultimately< potential compensation amounts specific to the partial or total development of each site based on the calculation method of the DRAAF Nouvelle-Aquitaine (amount per hectare of artificialized agricultural land)
This approach has several advantages:
- Anticipating the real financial cost of development projects;
- Objectifying trade-offs between development and preservation;
- Equipping elected officials in their decisions before urban planning documents.
As a rough estimate, for 19 studied areas representing approximately 525 hectares, of which 389 hectares are under potential agricultural compensation, the estimated amount of compensation amounts to 855 592 €. The calculation of this amount takes into account several years of restoration. It is important to note that this amount corresponds to the economic equivalent of a loss of activity, functionality of an agricultural system, or a sector.
The agricultural approach has also been intertwined and layered with an ecological approach (led by Oxao and following a similar methodology) to determine the areas most suitable for hosting ecological compensation measures, agricultural land to be preserved, or those that should be prioritized for receiving development projects.
The interest in implementing the ERC sequence upstream of projects is to anticipate the potential financial cost of development programs while controlling the evolution of the territory (artificialization of Natural, Agricultural, and Forest Spaces (ENAF)). This reflection must be carried out in a coordinated manner with elected officials as well as agricultural stakeholders present in the territory.
Towards mutualized compensation funds for agricultural and food transition
Agricultural compensation must target collective agricultural projects benefiting several actors in the agricultural world. Currently, they are mainly determined and used on a case-by-case basis, without engaging in thorough territorial reflection. However, some initiatives show the interest in a more structured organization:
- The Nièvre department (58) has created a Group of Agricultural Financing Users (GUFA), which is a variable capital SAS under the supervision of the prefect, co-founded by the Chamber of Agriculture and the main local unions: the Confederation Paysanne, the FDSEA, and the Young Farmers. Its goal is "to initiate, design, participate in, and carry out all operations aimed at contributing to the improvement of the economic, social, and environmental performance of farms and their sectors, to support the entrepreneurial and responsible approach of farmers and actors in agricultural sectors." One of the main resources of the GUFA is the collective agricultural compensation.
- The Collective Agricultural Compensation Fund< (CCA) in the Belfort territory finances local agricultural initiatives<. The DDT, in connection with the interdepartmental Chamber of Agriculture 25/90, ensures the processing of funding requests under this fund before they go to the departmental monitoring committee of the CCAs.
This organization and planning of agricultural compensation appears promising for ensuring a relevant and effective use of agricultural compensation amounts. We are convinced that it is possible to go even further, to consider the combination of territorial planning work (through the prior identification of areas to preserve, areas to develop – thus involving compensation for their development) and the creation of a compensation fund, supported by a community, allowing for the reception of due compensation amounts, in order to allocate them to projects promoting an agricultural and food transition that preserves agricultural and natural environments.
Furthermore, as we have seen, the coordination between agricultural compensation and ecological compensation allows for a much finer planning and anticipation of issues. Indeed, overlapping ecological and agricultural issues, which are too often considered separately, highlights particularly sensitive areas that need protection while also considering complementary actions (e.g., agroforestry actions). Additionally, pooling such funds would allow for larger budgets, enabling enhanced action. These actions must be selected in a way that: respects the general interest, benefits the largest number of people, and prioritizes the impacted sectors. It also seems relevant to consider their connection with any existing PAT (Territorial Food Program) in the area. The figure below illustrates some possible actions for utilizing compensation amounts, in line with the ambitions of a PAT.
Transforming a regulatory constraint into an opportunity
At Vertigo Lab and Oxao, we believe that a combination of territorial planning and the creation of a fund managed by a community would allow for better land preservation, in a way that aligns with the challenges of the territory while also enabling the financing of projects that support agricultural and food transition. Some action pathways have been identified in this study: support for transmission/installation (land restructuring, soil improvement works, etc.), support for production (investment in agricultural equipment, etc.), development of logistics and processing (establishing collective processing workshops or collectively managed sales points, etc.), and raising consumer awareness.
Even today, economic development issues often take precedence on a case-by-case basis over agricultural and environmental considerations, due to a lack of a global strategy.
An opportunity to sustainably reinject funding into the local agricultural economy
Beyond its role in regulating artificialization, collective agricultural compensation represents an opportunity to maintain and reinvest financial resources within the local agricultural economy. Too often perceived as a simple burden linked to development projects, compensation amounts can, when pooled, planned, and territorialized, become real investment levers for the benefit of farms and sectors in the territory.
By directing these funds towards agricultural projects that align with local challenges – maintaining and passing on farms, adapting to climate change, structuring supply chains, diversifying productions, improving added value, or developing agroecological practices – communities contribute to strengthening the economic resilience of the agricultural sector, while ensuring efficient and transparent use of these funds. Collective agricultural compensation thus transforms a regulatory constraint into a strategic tool for agricultural development, creating sustainable value for the territory.
References
[2] Technico-economic orientation of farms
