It does not account for its effects on the environment

Parliamentarians debate vehemently of the reform of the tax. Can that welcomed the disappearance of such a tax as it has been unanimously against him has had to a third of century. However, it is surprising to find nowhere sustainable development among the principles of this reform. The Grenelle of the environment is not current These days, the highest authorities of the State did not confirmed that environmental taxation was a fundamental orientation of the Government and a historic turning point Similarly, while the carbon tax is an avalanche of comments, there was nothing of the sort for the reform of the TP, but the issue is bigger (29 billion to less than three products expected for the carbon tax). The tax will be replaced by an assessment economic territorial (this), consisting of a local assessment of activity (CLA) sitting on the rental value of dutiable professional property of a property tax and an additional assessment on value added. Can, if you place the point of view of the environment, experience three types of reserves on the current project of reform.

First reserve, the proposed reform does not eliminate the negative incentives to the environment contained in TP. Thus will be exempt from CLA irrigation facilities, structures and channels of communication, public ports, farms. For other activities, the CLA will apply but taking into account that a part of the rental value (2/3 for example for airports). Applying to activities certainly useful but causing impacts on the environment, the persistence of these derogations will not contribute to internalization at least partially of environmental externalities that they generate, or reducing negative tax expenditure to the environment.

Second reserve, the reform also could have been an opportunity to introduce favourable provisions to the environment in the this. This is not the case. Today, there are only favourable to the environment in TP provision: the one-third reduction of the rental value of the facilities for the fight against pollution of water and air. It is limited in its scope and dated as occurred following the laws of air 1961 and 1964 on the water. Conversely, the TP as the CLA project contain many exemptions or exemptions for reasons social, culturels, educational opportunities, athletes, research... That were reached, for this reform, simply add the environment as a possible ground of exemption reflects its lack of environmental component.

The accumulation of these first two types of disadvantages puzzled. Two things one: either the this is a tax of performance and, in this case, is poorly understood as territorial economic activities there escape, especially for those that have an impact on the environment; either the this is a joint tax, exempting certain activities and, in this case, is poorly understood that there virtually is no exemption for the benefit of the environment.

The third reserve that can be experience is, precisely, the persistence even a CLA sitting on the rental values of professional real estate and has the allocation expected its revenues to the municipalities. This risk not encourage them host their territory facing surfaces of the tax maximum, even engage has a competition for this purpose, that may lead has an artificialisation beyond the necessary As it is now conceived, reform may not facilitate the commitment of the President of the Republic and of Grenelle to control urban sprawl.

Can suggest a few partial measures for a little "green" CLA: reduce exemptions enjoyed by certain adverse environmental activities; expand the list of exemptions and deductions for the environment; encourage (by differentiated rates) to economy of space, and its reuse, rather than a extension of activities on agricultural and natural spaces.

The TP reform project is a disappointment to those who have worked to reform the taxation of the environment for years because it is a missed opportunity. It does not appear to be holistically. It does not account for its effects on the environment. The creation, in 2007, a large Department of sustainable development, with expanded powers, with levers of action major, on the great choices and can have bar on them was seen by its proponents as a way to make progress in this area. The opportunity missed the TP appears to mark the boundaries of this design. Environmental issues are discussed on the one hand, tax issues on the other. In total, the principle of integrating the environment into other public policies, recommended by the OECD and the European Union, does still not apply.